EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 
IN MASSACHUSETTS 





|,is.s, L(3 1% 



I'KKSKNTKII IIY 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2011 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/exemptionfromtaxOOgree 



THE CONSTITUTION: 

"It shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods 
of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, 
and all seminaries of them; . . . . " 

Constitution of Massachusetts, chap. 5, sect. 2. 



THE STATUTE: 

The following property and polls shall he exempted from taxation. 



Third, The personal property of literary, benovelent, charitable and 
scientific institutions and of temperance societies incorporated within this 
commonwealth, the real estate owned and occupied by them or their officers 
for the purposes for which they are incorporated, and real estate purchased 
by them with the purpose of removal thereto, until such removal, but not for 
TYiare than two years after such purchase. Such real or personal property 
shall not be exempt if any of the income or profits of the business of such 
corporation is divided among the stockholders or members, or is used or 
appropriated for other than literary, educational, benevolent, charitable, 
scientific or religious purposes, nor shall it be exempt for any year in which 
such corporation wilfully omits to bring in to the assessors the list and state- 
ment required by section forty-one. 

Revised Laws 1902, Chap. 12, Sect. 5, cl. 3. 



THE COURT: 

" The statute is not to be construed narrowly but in a fair and liberal 
sense and so as to promote that spirit of learning, charity, and benevolence, 
which it has always been one of the fundamental objects of the people of this 
State to encourage." 

175 Mass. 125. 



EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 



Addresses, Reports, Judicial Proceedings, Legislative 

Bills, Acts and other Documents relating to 

the Exemption of Massachusetts Colleges 

and Universities from Taxation 



BOSTON 

Printed for the Colleges and Universities of ttic Commonwealtfi 

19 10 



PREFACE 



The proposals made in 1907 to restrict the right of Massachusetts 
colleges and universities to exemption from taxation brought about 
concerted action on the part of these institutions, to inform both the 
Legislature and the public of the fundamental principles justifying the 
statutory exemption. The issue being squarely defined, after the 
fullest public discussion, the House of Representatives decided by a 
vote of 142 to 14 that not even the most moderate reduction of the right 
to exemption would be tolerated by the Commonwealth of Massachu- 
setts. 

This gratifying outcome of the appeal to public opinion made by 
the colleges and universities of the state in 1907 suggested to the execu- 
tive committee having their interests in charge that it would be wise to 
compile for ready reference the addresses, reports and documents 
bearing on the question of exemption in Massachusetts. The com- 
mittee hope that this compilation will help to remove such misappre- 
hension as may appear from time to time in different parts of the state 
regarding both the principle of exemption and its effect upon the 
communities in which it occurs. 

The educational institutions of Massachusetts enjoying freedom 
from taxation on the ground of their performance of a public service, 
must always court the fullest investigation into the efficiency and 
good faith with which they perform that service. Their right to 
exemption can be ■ kept alive only by continuous service. Periodic 
inquiries on this subject, instead of being resented should be welcomed 
as providing an opportunity to make the educational resources of the 
state better known and more justly appreciated. On the other hand, 
when the object in view is to let the public and the Legislature know 
the history of exemption, the arguments justifying it, and its practical 
effects, the laborious search for data already available, and the re- 
investigation of subjects already exhaustively investigated and fully 
reported upon entail a large waste of time and money. It is there- 



6 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

fore with a view to economy and efficiency in bringing the resuUs of 
former legislation and discussion before the people of the state that 
the present volume is issued. A similar service has just been rendered 
by the Tax Commissioner's report (1910 House No. 1395) in which 
the results of previous investigations and judicial proceedings have 
been admirably summarized. 

JEROME D. GREENE, 

On behalf of the Executive Committee of the 
Cooperating Colleges and Universities. 

April 15, 1910. 



CONTENTS. 



Historical Statement 9 

President Eliot's Argument (1874) 21 

Report of Commissioners (1875) . . 49 

Ditto, Minority 55 

Report of Commission (1897) 65 

Ditto, Minority 66 

President Eliot's Remarks before Recess Committee, 1906 .... 69 
Table showing Relative Tax Rates of College Towns and Other Towns 83 
Table showing that the percentage of taxable property in college towns 
to that of whole county is higher than the percentage of their tax- 
able individuals to the number of taxable individuals in the county 84 
Table showing taxed and untaxed lodgings for students in Cambridge 85 
Table showing that exemption does not diminish the value of taxable 

realty in college towns as compared with other towns .... 86 

Report of Joint Special Committee on Taxation (1907) 87 

Ditto, Minority Report 94 

Table showing value of exempted property in certain towns .... 97 

President EUot's Remarks before Joint Committee, 1907 .... 99 

Private Dormitories Taxed in Cambridge: Valuations . . . . . Ill 

President Woolley's Statement (1907) 112 

President G. Stanley Hall's Statement (1907) 118 

President L. C. Seelye's Statement (1907) 121 

Remonstrance of Massachusetts Colleges (1907) 129 

Circular sent to Legislature by Committee of Colleges (1907) .... 137 

Newspaper Comments (1907) 143 

Brief for the colleges (1906) 161 

Harvard College vs. Assessors of Cambridge 

Report 179 

Brief of Mr. Samuel Hoar 188 

Brief of Mr. Gilbert A. A. Pevey 221 

Opinion of Morton, J., in Phillips Academy vs. Andover 233 

Opinion of Morton, J., in Harvard College vs. Assessors of Cambridge 239 

Extract from Report of Harvard Cooperative Society 245 

List of Acts concerning Exemption 249 

Bills and Resolves concerning Exemption Proposed but not passed 

(1874-1909) 255 

Questions and Answers on Taxation by J. D. Greene 273 

Law in other States 280 



THE EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION OF THE 

PROPERTY OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER 

EDUCATION IN MASSACHUSETTS. 



HISTORICAL STATEMENT. 

From the earliest times the personal property of literary insti- 
tutions and the real estate of such institutions actually occupied 
by them for literary purposes have been exempt from taxation. 
This exemption appears in the Revised Statutes of Massachusetts, 
1836, chap. 7, sect. 5, cl. 2, as follows: "The following property 
and polls shall be exempted from taxation, namely: The per- 
sonal property of all literary, benevolent, charitable and scientific 
institutions, incorporated within this Commonwealth, and such 
real estate belonging to such institutions, as shall actually be oc- 
cupied by them, or by the officers of said institutions, for the 
purposes for which they were incorporated." It is set forth in 
practically the same form in the General Statutes, 1860, chap. 11, 
sect. 5, cl. 3; (p. 249). 

In 1874 a bill was proposed in the I^egislature to tax the property 
of musical, agricultural and educational associations, other than 
colleges and town schools theretofore exempted from taxation, (p. 
256.) This was accompanied by a petition of some 1150 citizens, 
and a petition of the Executive Committee of the Boston Liberal 
League. The Committee of the Legislature on Just and Equal 
Taxation recommended. May 28, 1874, the appointment of a 
commission to make an inquiry and investigation in regard to 
laws relating to taxation and exemptions therefrom, and to make 
a full report to the next General Court, (p. 255.) 

By a resolve of the General Court, approved June 18, 1874, such 
a commission with powers as recommended was appointed, con- 



10 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

si.stiiig of three members. This Commission, by a vote of two 
to one, recommended that no change be made in the exemption of \ 
ethicational institutions from taxation, (p. 49.') 

Shortly after this report two statutes affecting the exemption 
were passed and were later embodied in Public Statutes, 1882, 
chap. 11, sect. 5, cl. 3. (p. 250.) The first of these statutes. Acts 
of 1874, chap. 375, sect. 8, enacted that no real or personal prop- 
erty of literary corporations should be exempt, if any part of the 
income or profits thereof was to be divided among the members 
or stockholders or was to be used for other than literary purposes, 
(p. 249.) The second of these statutes. Acts of 1878, chap. 214, 
required that, when such an institution purchased real estate, the 
exemption should not apply thereto prior to actual occupation for 
a longer period than two years, (p. 250.) 

Acts of 1882, chap. 217, sects, land 2, provided that all persons 
and corporations who held property for literary, benevolent, cliar- 
itable or scientific purposes should bring in to the assessors true 
lists of all such real and personal estate before the first of July in 
any year; and that if any person or corporation wilfully should 
omit to bring in such list the estate so held should not be exempt 
from taxation, (p. 250.) 

Acts of 1886, chap. 231, extended the exemption to the property 
of temperance societies. Acts of 1888, chap. 158, slightly changed 
the language of the third paragraph of section five of chapter 
eleven of the Public Statutes as amended by chapter two hundred 
and thirty-one of the Acts of eighteen hundred and eighty-six, 
without however making any material alteration therein, (p. 251.) 

The exemption in final form appears in Revised Laws, 1902, 
chap. 12, sect. 5, cl. 3, as follows: "The following property and 

tolls shall be exempted from taxation": Third, The personal 

property of literary, benevolent, charitable and scientific institu- 
tions and of temperance societies incorporated within this com- 
monwealth, the real estate owned and occupied by them or their 
oflficers for the purposes for which they are incorporated, and real 
estate purchased hy them 'with the purpose of removal thereto, 
until such removal, but not for more than two years after such 



HISTORICAL STATEMENT 11 

purchase. Such real or personal property shall not be exempt il 
any of the income or profits of the business of such corporation i^ 
divided among the stockliolders or members, or is used or appro- 
priated for other than literary, educational, benevolent, charitable, 
scientific or religious purposes, nor shall it be exempt for any year 
in which such corporation wilfully omits to bring in to the assessors 
the list and statement recjuired by section forty-one." 

The last Legislative enactment in Massachusetts substantially 
affecting the exemption from taxation of property devoted to lite- 
rary uses is Acts of 1888, chap. 158. Since that act, however, the 
exemption has been vigorously discussed; and a nmiiber of bills 
attacking it have been introduced in the Legislature. In order, 
however, to understand thoroughly the subsequent history of the 
subject, it will be necessary to examine to some extent the course of 
litigation in Massachusetts involving this class of legislation. The 
form of the statutes granting the exemption has from the earliest 
tiines left an opening for dispute. It will be remembered that no 
real estate belonging to literary institutions is exempt unless it is 
occupied by such institutions or by their officers for the purposes 
for which they were incorporated. For more than half a century 
this limitation of the exemption has been the subject of occasional 
litigation. 

In Pierce v. Cambridge, 2 Cush. 611 (1849), it was held by the 
Supreme Judicial Court of INIassachusetts that the plaintiff, who 
was a professor at Harvard University, was obliged to pay taxes 
on a house belonging to the Corporation while he held that house 
under a lease, paying rent, inasmuch as the present estate was in 
him, and the Corporation only had a reversionary interest. On 
the other hand, in Wesleyan Academy v. Wilbraham, 99 Mass. 
599 (1868), the same court held that a farm and stock thereon 
owned by an exempted educational institution, which were used 
solely to raise produce and to do teaming work for a boarding house 
kept by the institution to supply board to the students at cost, 
were exempt. In the following year in IMassachusetts General 
Hospital V. Somerville, 101 Mass. 319, a case closely allied to those 
dealing with exemptions of literary institutions, it was held that 



\V 



12 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

payment of rent to a corporation by an individual was not con- 
clusive evidence that the relation between them was not that of 
master and servant; and, accordingly, if a workman solely by rea- 
son of his service occupied an old wooden building on untaxed 
land owned by a hospital, if he was exclusively employed by the 
corporation, and if from his wages the superintendent deducted a 
sum of rent, that building was exempt from taxation. In 1887 
the Mt. Hermon Boys' School which owned a large farm with 
buildings thereon was involved in litigation in regard to this prop- 
erty through the attempt of the town to tax it. It appeared that 
in addition to attending school the scholars were required to work 
on the farm and were taught agriculture. The products in large 
measure were consumed in furnishing food for the scholars, 
although some of them were sold and the proceeds applied to school 
uses. The exceptions of the School to an adverse decision in the 
Court below were sustained; and the Supreme Court held that the 
use of the farm and of its products was so closely allied to the objects 
of the School that the farm could be said to be occupied for the 
purpose for which the institution was incorporated. Mt. Hermon 
Boy's School v. Gill, 145 Mass. 139 (1887). 

Ten years later the municipalities attacked the colleges from 
a different quarter. In Williamstown, Williams College owned a 
number of dwelling houses which were occupied as residences by 
persons engaged solely in instruction and government under parol 
agreements, whereby each officer enjoyed the use of the estate and 
received a monthly salary from which a certain sum was deducted 
for the purposes of rent. No further evidence appeared as to the 
character of the occupation; and it was held that these dwelling 
houses were not exempt, inasmuch as they were occupied for strictly 
private purposes. Williams College v. Williamstown, 167 Mass. 
505 (1897). This case was followed in Amherst College v. Am- 
herst, 173 Mass. 232 (1899). 

Shortly after the decision in the Williams College case, the City 
of Cambridge assessed a tax for the year 1897 on property of 
Hars^ard University consisting of a house and lot devoted to the 
purposes of a dining hall for students, and on several houses and 



HISTORICAL STATEMENT 13 

lots occupied by the President and certain professors. Tlie food 
at the dining hall was supplied to the students at cost through the 
medium of a club of their own organization. The houses occupied 
by the President and by the professors, who were, with one excep- 
tion, administrative officers as well, were used to some extent for 
college business, partly for the convenience of the College and 
partly for the convenience of the occupant. These private dwelling 
houses were cared for in part by the College ; and the salary of each 
occupant was fixed annually at a certain sum "and the use of a 
house." The case was submitted to a Justice of the Superior 
Court on an agreed statement of facts. He decided that the several 
properties were exempt from taxation, and by consent of the parties 
reported the case to the Supreme Judicial Court. In 1900 the 
Court rendered its decision, affirming the decision of the Superior 
Court, and at the same time handed down an opinion in Phillips 
Academy v. Andover, which had been argued shortly before the 
Harvard College case, and involved the same legal principles. Mr. 
Justice Morton, who delivered the opinions of the Court in both 
cases, had little difficulty in holding that property occupied for 
the purpose of providing college students wholesome food at cost 
was property occupied for the purposes for which the College was 
incorporated. In regard to property occupied by the President 
and the professors he distinguished the case of Williams College v. 
Williamstown by saying that the difference lay between an occu- 
pancy for the private benefit and convenience of the officer, as 
in the ordinary case of landlord and tenant, and an occupancy 
where, although the relation of landlord and tenant existed, the 
principal consideration was the effect of the occupancy in pro- 
moting the objects of the institution in the various ways in which 
such occupancy may tend to promote them. In the case of the 
properties presented by Harvard College and Phillips Academy 
cases the occupancy was of the latter character, and, therefore, the 
properties were exempt. Phillips Academy v. Andover, 175 Mass. 
118; Harvard College v. Cambridge, 175 Mass. 145; (for a full 
report of the briefs and opinions see p. 179). 

Meanwhile, under a resolve approved June 4, 1896, a second 



J 4 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

commission, this time of five persons, was appointed to inquire 
into the expediency of revising and amending the laws relating to 
taxation. On October 1, 1897, this Commission reported by a 
majority of four to one that no change in the existing legislation 
regarding the exemption of educational institutions from taxation 
should be made. The recommendation of the minority was that 
the Commonwealth should reimburse the cities and towns in which 
colleges or universities were situated for the so-called burden 
imposed upon them by the withdrawal from taxation of the land 
occupied by those institutions, (p. 65.) 

Soon after, Williams College endeavored to obtain through the 
Legislature what they had been deprived of by the courts. The 
President and Trustees of the College petitioned that the real 
estate of an educational institution should be exempt from taxa- 
tion whenever the occupation thereof by an officer of instruction, 
administration, or government of such institution is in whole or in 
part the compensation of such officer. This petition was pre- 
sented to the Legislature of 1897 with a Senate bill (p. 258). This 
question, however, was left to the next General Court. A similai" 
bill, Senate No. 131, was accordingly introduced in the year 1898 
(p. 258). This bill was referred by the Senate to the House, 
and was then sent to the Committee on Taxation. 1898 House 
Journal, p. 79. The city solicitor of Cambridge argued before that 
Committee against this bill on ]\Iarch 25, 1898. 

On April 25, 1898, the Committee on Taxation reported a bill 
and a resolve. The bill, House No. 1330, included the substance 
of Senate No. 131, and added that the exemption should extend to 
haiJs, dormitories, and other buildings which might be occupied 
for the purposes for which the institution was incorporated, (p. 
259.) The resolve. House No. 1331, recommended the appoint- 
ment of a Commission to report upon the relation of the exemption 
of educational property to local and general taxation, (p. 259.) 
The House refused to order the bill, 87 to 44, and the resolve to a 
third reading. 1898, House Journal, 1009. 

In 1899 two bills were introduced in the House. One provided 
that the property of literary and scientific institutions should only 



HISTORICAL STATEMENT 15 

be exempt from state taxes. The other bill subjected the prop- 
erty of educational institutions to taxation in the same manner as 
other property, excepting such real and personal estate as is actually 
used for instruction or education. It then went on to enumerate 
certain classes of real estate which should be exempt. The Com- 
mittee on Taxation reported leave to withdraw these two bills; 
the report was accepted in the House and sent up for concurrence, 
1899, House Journal, 441. The report was accepted in concur- 
rence in the Senate. 1899, Senate Journal, 381. 

In 1900 a bill was introduced in the House proposing that the 
amount of real estate belonging to literary and scientific institu- 
tions hitherto exempted from taxation should be assessed, and 
that the amount of the tax thereon should be credited and paid 
out of the treasury of the Commonwealth to the towns in which 
the institutions were situated. The Committee on Taxation re- 
ported to the Senate leave lo withdraw. This report was accepted, 
and sent down for concurrence. 1900, Senate Journal, 487. It 
was considered in the House; and there was a motion to amend 
by the substitution of a bill, but this motion was lost by a vote 
of 51 yeas to 128 nays. And so the report was accepted in con- 
currence. 1900, House Journal, p. 792-794. In 1906 further 
legislation was attempted in the Senate. A bill was introduced 
to remove the exemption from dormitories and dining halls. This 
bill was sent to the Committee on Taxation, and was then re- 
ferred to the next General Court. This disposition of it, however, 
was reconsidered, and Senate No. 382 substituted. This bill, 
though less extensive in character, was directed in general to- 
wards the same subject matter. Finally this latter bill was re- 
ferred to the next General Court. 1906, Senate Journal, pp. 838, 
839, 845, 846, 872, 912. A special joint committee, consisting 
of four members of the Senate and eleven members of the House, 
was appointed to consider the expediency of amending the laws in 
reward to taxation. Senate No. 382 was referred to it; and it 
considered the cjuestion of college taxation in entirety. The Com- 
mittee recommended, 14 to 1, that there be no change in the laws 
relating to the exemption from taxation of the property of edu- 
cational institutions. 



16 EXEMPTION FROINI TAXATION 

Meanwhile the exemption chiuse had been three times before 
the Courts. In Phi Beta Epsilon Corporation v. Boston, 182 Mass. 
457 (1903) a club for students of the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology sought to avoid the payment of taxes on its building 
which furnished board and lodging for students. The building- 
was not owned by the Institute. The Court held that the club 
must pay taxes. In Emerson v. Milton Academy, 185 INIass. 414 
(1904), houses occupied by teachers and their families for the 
purposes of discipline, land for athletic fields, and vacant land 
for use of the pupils, all owned by the Academy, were held exempt 
from taxation. The previous cases were cited with approval, 
and their principles applied in Amherst College v. Amherst, 193 
Mass. 168 (1906). There the President's house, the athletic 
field, a professor's house, and a grove used by the students for 
recreation, all owned by the College, w^re held exempt from taxa- 
tion; while other property let to an individual not in the employ 
of the institution, and a barn used by the President for storage 
purposes were held taxable, although college property. 

In 1907 a vigorous attack was made on the exemption by its 
opponents. Five bills were introduced in the Senate by them. 
Two of these bills required that an amount of money equal to the 
taxes that would have been due from the real estate of educational 
institutions were it not for the exemption, should be paid by the 
Commonwealth to the municipalities in wdiich they w^ere situated. 
Another provided that half the sum so estimated should be paid 
by the Commonwealth. A fourth withheld the exemption from 
real property used for residential or commercial purposes or for 
dormitories; and a fifth. Senate Bill No. 290, subjected the resi- 
dences of officers of instruction, administration, or government to 
taxation, (pp. 261-268.) These bills were referred by the Senate 
to the Committee on Taxation and were sent down from that Com- 
mittee for concurrence. 1907, Senate Journal, p. 590. Of these. 
Senate Bill No. 290 was selected to go before the Senate. By a 
vote of 23 to 13 the bill was amended by adding at the end of 
Section 1 thereof the w^ords "provided that nothing herein con- 
tained shall subject to taxation any building otherwise exempt of 



HISTORICAL STATEMENT 17 

which less than one-half in extent and value is occupied for any 
residential use or purpose by such officer or officers; and provided, 
further, that in no event shall more than the portion of any build- 
ing so occupied or a sum equal in value to such portion be taxed 
against the owner of said building under the provisions of this Act." 
This Bill as amended passed the Senate by a vote of 17 to 1 1 . 1907, 
Senate Journal, pp. 699-701. The action of the Senate called 
forth the unanimous protest of all the universities, colleges, and 
scientific institutions in the Commonwealth. On April 17, 1907, 
their representatives met and appointed a Committee which 
drew up and sent to the Senate and the House of Representatives 
an emphatic remonstrance against this legislation, (p. 129.) 
The bill was overwhelmingly defeated in the House by a vote of 
142 to 14. 1907, House Journal, p. 891, 892. 

A third Commission on Taxation was recommended by the 
Committee on Taxation in May, 1907. This recommendation 
was approved in June and a Commission of nine members ap^ 
pointed; two to be appointed from the Senate by the presi- 
dent of the Senate, four to be appointed from the House of Repre- 
sentatives by the speaker of the House, and three, experts on 
taxation, to be appointed by the Governor. This Committee 
mianimously reported in January, 1908, against modifying the 
exemption enjoyed by educational institutions. 

In 1908 two bills directed against the exemption were introduced 
in the House. One contemplated taxing the real estate thereafter 
acquired by Harvard University; the other, the payment by the 
Commonwealth to the municipality of one half the taxes that 
would have been assessed on the real estate of an educational 
institution were it not for the exemption, (pp. 268-269.) These 
bills were referred to the Committee on Taxation, which reported 
on both leave to withdraw. 1908, House Journal, p. 711. These 
reports were later considered by the House; and it was moved 
that the report on the second bill be amended by the substitution 
of a bill providing that land and buildings thereon hereafter ac- 
quired by any institution having authority to grant degrees shall 
not be exempt from taxation, provided they are used for such 



18 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

purposes of the institution as may be productive of income. 
This amendment was rejected by a vote of 59 to 10; and the 
report was accepted. The report of the Committee on the bill 
in regard to Harvard University was also accepted. 1908, House 
Journal, p. 886. Shortly afterwards a motion to reconsider the 
latter vote was adopted by the House. It was then moved that 
the report be amended; but after further debate the amendment 
was rejected by a vote of 47 to 31, and the report was accepted. 
At the end of the same session the House rejected by a vote of 

19 to 10 an order directing the Tax Commissioner to furnish to 
the next General Court, not later than the fifteenth day of Jan- 
uary, a schedule of all property in the Commonwealth owned by 
imiversities and colleges, upon which no taxes are paid or which 
is exempt from taxation under the laws of this Commonwealth. 
1908, House Journal, 1172. 

In 1909 two bills were introduced and referred to the Committee 
on Taxation; one proposed to divide between the institution, the 
town and the state the assessment on property of colleges and uni- 
versities now exempt; the other to tax all real estate hereafter 
acquired by Harvard University, (p. 270.) 1909, Senate Journal, 
p. 76. 1909, House Journal, p. 74. The Committee reported a 
resolve, which was passed, to provide for an investigation by the 
Tax Commissioner of the exemption from taxation of the property 
of educational and public institutions. 1909, Senate Journal, pp. 
722, 739, 754, 784. 1909, House Journal, pp. 677, 718, 841, 934. 

The rejection of the two bills was recommended by the com- 
mittee on taxation, and they were rejected in the House, April 8, 
1910. 1910, House Journal, pp. 927, 928. 



THE EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION OF CHURCH 
PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY OF EDU- 
CATIONAL AND CHARITABLE 
INSTITUTIONS. 

BY CHARLES W. ELIOT, 

President of Harvard College. 



19 



THE EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION OF CHURCH 
PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY OF EDU- 
CATIONAL AND CHARITABLE 
INSTITUTIONS. 

BY CHARLES W. ELIOT, 

President of Harvard College. 



Cambridge, December 12, 1874. 

To the Commissioners of the Commonwealth, appointed ''to inquire 
into the expediency of revising and amending the laws of the State 
relating to taxation and the exemptions therefrom" : — 

Gentlemen: — In accordance with a request contained in a letter 
of October 14, 1874, from Prof. J. H. Seelye, that I lay before your 
Commission my "views respecting the present exemption from taxa- 
tion of property used for religious, educational and charitable pur- 
poses," I respectfully present for your consideration the following 
paper. 

Your obedient servant, 

CHARLES W. ELIOT. 



The property which has been set apart for religious, educational 
and charitable uses is not to be thought of or dealt with as if it were 
private property; for it is completely unavailable for all the ordinary 
purposes of property, so long as the trusts endure. It is like prop- 
erty of a city or state which is essential for carrying on the work of 
the city or state, and so cannot be reckoned among the public assets; 
it is irrecoverable and completely unproductive. The capital is sunk, 
so to speak, just as the cost of a sewer or a highway is capital sunk. 
There is a return, both from a church or a college, and from a sewer 

21 



22 EXEMPTION FROxM TAXATION 

or a highway, in the benefit seeured to the comnuinity; but the money 
which buih them is no longer to be counted as property, in the com- 
mon sense. It can never again be productive, except for the puiposes 
of the trust for which it was set apart. 

When a new road is made where there was none, the State, or some 
individual, sacrifices the vahie of the land it covers, and the money 
spent in building the road. It also sacrifices the opportunity to tax, 
in the future, the improvements which might have been put upon that 
land if it had not been converted into a road, and all the indirect tax- 
able benefits which might have been derived from the use for produc- 
tive puq:)Oses of the land, and of the money which the road cost. When 
a church, or a college, or a hospital, buys land, and erects buildings 
thereon, the State does not sacrifice the value of the land, or the 
money spent upon the buildings; private persons make these sacrifices; 
but the State does sacrifice, by the exemption statute, the opportunity 
to tax, in the future, the improvements which might have been put 
upon that land if it had not been converted to religious, educational 
or charitable uses, and all the indirect taxable benefits Avhich might 
have been derived from the use for productive purposes of the land, 
and of the money which the buildings cost. 

This is the precise burden of the exemption upon the State. Why 
does the State assume it? For a reason similar to, though much 
stronger than, its reason for building a new road, and losing that area 
forever for taxation. The State believes that the new road Avill be 
such a convenience to the community that the indirect gain from 
making it will be greater than the direct and indirect loss. In the 
same way the State believes, or at least believed when the exemption 
statute was adopted, that the indirect gain to its treasury which results 
from the establishment of the exempted institutions is greater than 
the loss which the exemption involves. If this belief is correct in the 
main, though not perhaps universally and always, the exemption can 
hardly be properly described as a burden to the State at large. 

The parallel between a sewer or a highway, on the one hand, and 
land and buildings of exempted institutions, on the other, may be 
carried a little farther with advantage. The abutters often pay a 
part of the cost of the sewer or the highway which passes their doors, 
because it is of more use to them than to the rest of the inhabitants, 
and the members of the religious, educational or charitable society 
erect their necegsary buildings and pay for their land themselves. If 



ARGUMENT OF PRESIDENT ELIOT — 1874 23 

it be granted that the reUgious, educational or charitable use is a pub- 
lic use, like the use of a sewer or a highway, there is no more reason 
for taxing the church, the academy or the hospital, than for annually 
taxing the abutters on a sewer or a highway on the cost of that sewer 
or on the cost of the highway and its value considered as so many 
feet of land, worth, like the adjoining lots, so many dollars a foot. 
The community is repaid for the loss of the taxable capital sunk in 
the sewer by the benefit to the public health, and the resulting en- 
hancement of the value of all its territory. In like manner, it is 
repaid for the loss of the capital set apart for religious, educational 
and charitable uses, by the increase of morality, spirituality, intelli- 
gence and virtue, and the general well-being which results therefrom. 
To tax lands, buildings, or funds which have been devoted to religious 
or educational purposes, would be to divert money from the highest 
public use, — the promotion of learning and virtue, — to some lower 
public use, like the maintenance of roads, prisons or courts, an opera- 
tion which cannot be expedient until too large an amount of property 
has been devoted to the superior use. This is certainly not the case 
in Massachusetts to-day. The simple reasons for the exemption of 
churches, colleges and hospitals from taxation are these: first, that 
the State needs those institutions; and secondly, that experience has 
shown that by fdr the cheapest and best way in which the State can 
get them is to encourage benevolent and public-spirited people to pro- 
vide them by promising not to divert to inferior public uses any part 
of the income of the money which these benefactors devote to this 
noblest public use. The statute which provides for the exemption is 
that promise. 

Exemption from taxation is not then a form of State aid, in the 
usual sense of those words; it is an inducement or encouragement 
held out by the State to private persons, or private corporations, to 
establish or maintain institutions which are of benefit to the State. 
The answer to the question, — Why should the State give encourage- 
ment, in any form, to private corporations which support churches, 
academies, colleges, hospitals, asylums, and similar institutions of 
learning, advanced education and pubUc charity, — involves, there- 
fore, an exposition of the public usefulness of these corjDorations. I 
say advanced education, because the lower grades of education are 
already provided for at the public charge, and there seems to be little 
disposition to question the expediency and rightfulness of this pro- 
vision. 



24 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION* 

The reason for treating these institutions in an exceptional manner 
is, that having no selfish object in view, or puipose of personal gain, 
they contribute to the welfare of the State. Their function is largely 
a public function; their work is done, primarily, indeed, for individ- 
uals, but ultimately for the public good. It is not enough to say of 
churches and colleges that they contribute to the welfare of a State; 
they are necessary to the existence of a free State. They form and 
mold the public character; and that public character is the founda- 
tion of everything which is precious in the State, including even its 
material prosperity. To develop noble human character is the end 
for which States themselves exist; and civil liberty is not a good in 
itself, but only a means to that good end. The work of churches and 
institutions of education is a direct work upon human character. 
The material prosperity of every improving community is a fruit of 
character; for it is . energetic, honest and sensible men that make 
prosperous business, and not prosperous business that makes men. 
Who have built up the manufactures and trade of this bleak and 
sterile Massachusetts? A few men of singular sagacity, integrity 
and courage, backed by hundreds of thousands of men and women of 
common intelligence and honesty. The roots of the prosperity are 
in the intelligence, courage and honesty. Massachusetts to-day owes 
its mental and moral characteristics, and its wealth, to eight genera- 
tions of people who have loved and cherished Church, School and 
College. 

The public services of these institutions can hardly need to be en- 
larged upon. A single sentence may be given to the utility of that 
class of institutions which I may be supposed to speak for — ^the 
institutions of advanced education — the academies, colleges, scien- 
tific and technical schools, professional schools and seminaries, art 
collections and museums of natural history. All the professions 
called learned or scientific are fed by these institutions; the whole 
school system depends upon them, and could not be maintained in 
efficiency without them; they foster piety, art, literature and poetry; 
they gather in and preserve the intellectual capital of the race, and 
are the storehouses of the acquired knowledge on which invention 
and progress depend; they enlarge the boundaries of knowledge; 
they maintain the standards of honor, public duty and public spirit, 
and diffuse the refinement, culture and spirituality without which 
added M'ealth would only be added grossness and corruption. 



ARGUMENT OF PRESIDENT ELIOT 1874 25 

Such is the absolute necessity of the public work which the institu- 
tions of religion, education and charity do, that if the work were not 
done by these private societies, the State would be compelled to carry 
it on through its own agents, and at its own charge. In all the civil- 
ized world, there are but two known ways of supporting the great 
institutions of religion, high education and public charity. The first 
and commonest way is by direct annual subsidies or appropriations 
by government; the second way is by means of endo'miients. These 
two methods may of course be combined. An endowment, in this 
sense, is property, once private, which has been consecrated forever 
to public uses. If, in one generation, a group of people subscribe to 
buy a piece of land, and build a church thereon, that chureli is an 
inalienable endowment for the benefit of succeeding generations. It 
cannot be diverted from religious uses, or ever again become private 
property. If a private person becjueath fifty thousand dollars with 
which to maintain six free beds for Boston sick or wounded in the 
Massachusetts General Hospital, which is an institution supported by 
endoAvments, that beneficent act obviates forever the necessity of 
maintaining six beds at the Boston City Hospital, which is an insti- 
tution supported by direct taxation. If, by the sacrifices of generous 
and public-spirited people in seven generations, Harvard University 
has gradually gathered property which might now be valued at five 
or six millions of dollars, the State of INIassachusetts is thereby saved 
from an annual expenditure of three or four hundred thousand dollars 
for the purpose of maintaining the liberal arts and professions; unless, 
indeed, the people of the State should be willing to leave the work 
of the university undone. To the precise extent of the work done 
by the income of endowments is the State relieved of what A\'ould 
otherwise be its charge. If some benevolent private citizen had built 
w^ith his own money the State Lunatic Hospitals, the State would have 
been relieved of a very considerable charge. To tax such endowments 
is to reduce the good work done by them, and therefore to increase 
the work to be done by direct appropriation of government money, 
unless the people are willing to accept the alternative of having less 
work of the kind done. If the State wants the work done, it has but 
two alternatives — it can do it itself, or it can encourage and help 
benevolent and public-spirited individuals to do it. There is no 
third way. 

The above argument in favor of the exemption of institutions of 



26 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

religion, education and charity from taxation being conclusive unless 
it can be rebutted, 1 i)roi)ose to consider successively the various 
attem])ts which have been made to repel or evade it. 

The first objection which I propose to consider would be expressed 
somewhat in this fashion by one who felt it: "I admit that churches, 
colleges and hospitals are useful, and I do not wish to see their good 
work diminished; but these institutions get the benefit of schools, 
police, roads, street lamps, prisons and courts, and should help to 
support them; their friends and supporters are generous, and will 
more than make good what the institutions contribute to the city or 
town expenses." The meaning of this suggestion is just this: The 
body of tax-payers in a given community having, through the public 
spirit and generosity of a few of their number, got rid of one of their 
principal charges, — namely, the support of the institutions of religion, 
high education and charity — propose to avoid paying their full pro- 
portion of the remaining charges for public purposes, such as schools, 
roads, prisons, and police. They propose, by taxing the institutions 
which the benevolent few established for the benefit of the whole 
body, to throw upon these same public-spirited and generous men an 
undue share of the other public charges. To state the same thing in 
another form: there are in the community common charges, A, B, C, 
D and E; A has been provided for by a few private persons at their 
own cost, and the burden of other tax-payers has been to that extent 
lightened; thereupon the tax-payers say. Let us take part of the 
money which these men have given for A, and use it for meeting 
charges B, C, D and E. Our friends who provided for A will give 
some more money for that purpose, and we shall escape a part of our 
share of the cost of providing for B, C, D and E. It is at once ap- 
parent that this objection is both illogical and mean; — illogical, 
because if churches, colleges and hos])itals subserve the highest public 
ends, there is no reason for making them contribute to the inferior 
public charges; and mean, because it deliberately proposes to use 
the benevolent affections of the best part of the community as means 
of getting out of them a very disproportionate share of the taxes. 

The next objection to the exemption which I propose to consider is 
formulated as follows: — Churches, colleges and hospitals do indeed 
render public service; they are useful to the State; but let them be 
established because people feel the need of them, just as people feel 
the need of houses, and food, and clothes, and by all means let them 



ARGUMENT OF PRESIDENT ELIOT — 1874 27 

support themselves; they ought not to be favored or artificially fos- 
tered. Railroads, factories and steamship lines do service to the 
State; but it does not follow that they ought to be fostered by direct 
grants of public money, or be exempt from taxation. This objection 
is a plausible one at first sight; but there is a gap in the argument 
wide enough for whole communities to fall through into ignorance 
and misery. For the building of railroads, factories and steamships 
there exists an all-suflficient motive; namely, the motive of private 
gain; and they ought not to be built unless there be a genuine motive 
of that sort. A few men can combine together to build a cotton mill 
whenever there seems to be a good chance to make money by so doing ; 
and they will thus supply the community with mills. The benefit 
they might confer upon the State would not be a legitimate motive 
for building a mill in the absence of the probability of private gain. 
Now this motive of private gain is not only absent from the minds of 
men who found or endow churches, colleges or hospitals, but would 
be absolutely ineffective to the end of procuring such institutions. 
It would be impossible for three or four men to establish and carry 
on a university simply for the education of their own sons. Those 
who found and maintain hospitals have, as a rule, no personal use of 
them. It is an unworthy idea that a church exists for the personal 
profit and pleasure of its members, or a college for the private advan- 
tage of those who are educated there. A church or a college is a 
sacred trust, to be used and improved by its members of to-day, and 
to be by them transmitted to its members of to-morrow. A modern 
church is an active centre of diffused charity, and of public exliorta- 
tion to duty. The press has enlarged the public influence of the 
pulpit by adding the multitude who read the printed sermon to the 
congregation who listen to it. The orators, poets, artists, physicians, 
architects, preachers and statesmen do not exercise their trained 
faculties simply for their own pleasure and advantage, but for the 
improvement and delight, or the consolation and relief, of the com- 
munity. In short, they do not live for themselves, and could not if 
they would. To increase virtue and piety, to diffuse knowledge and 
foster learning, and to alleviate suffering, are the real motives for 
founding and maintaining churches, colleges and hospitals. The 
work must be done through the individuals on whom the institutions 
spend their efforts, but the motive of those who promote the work 
is the public good and the advancement of humanity. Mills, hotels, 



28 EXEMPTIOX' FROM TAXATION 

railroads and steamships, moreover, though they benefit the public, 
benefit them only in a material way; they provide clothing, shelter, 
easy transportation, and, in general, increase material well-being. 
People may be relied on to make themselves comfortable or wealthy, 
if they can; but they need every possible aid in making themselves 
good, or learned. The self-interest of no man, and of no association 
of men, would lead to the establishment of a university. The motive 
of private gain or benefit being wholly lacking in most cases, and 
feeble in all, it is to be expected that institutions of religion, high 
education and public charity would not be founded and maintained, 
except by the direct action of the State, on the one hand, or, on the 
other, by the benefactions of private persons encouraged by fostering 
legislation. This is precisely the experience of all the modern nations. 
The American States noAV do less for the institutions of religion directly 
than any civiHzed nation, and they have done Avisely in completely 
avoiding an establishment of religion; but from the time when they 
ceased to support religious institutions directly they fostered them by 
exempting them from taxation. Institutions of high education never 
have been self-supporting in any country; and there is no reason 
whatever to suppose that they ever can be. If they were made self- 
supporting, they would be inaccessible to the poor, and be maintained 
exclusively for the benefit of the rich. The higher the plane of teach- 
ing, the more the teaching costs, and the fewer the pupils, from the 
nature of the case. As to the charitable corporations whose whole 
income is used upon the sick, blind or insane poor, the notion that 
they could ef-er be self-supporting is of course an absurdity. Hos- 
pitals and asylums which are wholly devoted to taking care of men 
and women of the laboring classes who have lost their health, their 
''reason, or some of their senses, cannot be self-supporting in the nature 
of the case. It is an abuse of language to apply the word to them; 
they are inevitably supported by private benevolence, or from the 
government treasury, or by the combination of these two resources. 
The opinion, then, that churches, colleges and charitable insti- 
tutions would be established in sufficient numbers without fostering 
legislation, and be as well maintained taxed as untaxed, has no war- 
rant either in sound reason or in experience. Not a bit of practical 
experience can be found in the civilized world to support it; and 
the analogy set up between these institutions of religion, education 
and charitv, on the one hand, and establishments of trade, manu- 



ARGUMENTT OF PRESIDENT ELIOT — 1874 29 

factures and transportation, on the other is wholly inapplicable and 
deceptive. , 

I come now to the ^consideration of an objection to the exemption, 
which is local in its nature, but not on that account less worthy of 
careful examination. Those who urge this objection admit that the 
public receives great benefit from churches, colleges and hospitals; 
but, as these institutions necessarily have local habitations, and taxes 
under our laws are locally levied, they allege that the particular cities 
or towns in which the institutions happen to be situated bear, in loss 
of taxable property, the so-called burden of their exemption, Avhile 
the whole State, or perhaps the whole country, shares the public 
benefits which accrue from them. The public burdened, it is alleged, 
is not the same public as the public benefited. This objection as- 
sumes, in the first place, that it is a burden to a city or town to have 
a lot of land within its borders occupied by an institution exempted 
from taxation; and this assumption is based upon the belief that, if 
the exempted institution did not occupy the lot, the taxable houses, 
or factories, or stores within the limits of the city or town would be 
increased by the number of houses or stores which might stand upon 
the exempted lot. This is a proposition which is generally quite 
incapable of proof, and is intrinsically improbable, but which never- 
theless has, in some cases, a small basis of unimportant fact. It im- 
plies that there is an unsatisfied demand for eligible land on which to 
build houses, or factories, or stores, within the city or town limits; 
but this can be the case only in very few exceptionally situated cities, 
and not all the time in them, but only spasmodically in seasons of 
speculation or unusual activity, — and even then not over their whole 
area, but only in very limited portions of it. Of course the cost of 
the buildings which might be erected upon a lot rescued from an 
exempted institution is not to be counted as an additional resource 
for the tax-gatherer; for that amount Avas, under our laws, taxable 
somewhere before as personal property. If, in any town or city, 
there are houses or factories or stores enough to meet the demand for 
such accommodations, the town or city will gain nothing by having 
more buildings erected. There may be more houses or more stores, 
but each house or each store will be Avorth less. In a large city there 
will always be a few streets, and perhaps AAiiarves, which are abso- 
lutely needed for business purposes. Thus, for example, it might not 
be expedient to haA'e an exempted institution, AA^hich had no need of 



30 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

water-front, occupy a portion of a limited water-front, every vard of 
which was neeiled for commerce. It might not be expedient that a 
church should occupy a street corner, or an open scpiare, in the heart 
of the business quarter of a growing cit}', — though London has not 
felt obliged to move St. Paul's into the country, or build upon Trafal- 
gar Scjuare. But such peculiar cases are to be wisely treated as the 
exceptions which they really are; at any rate, they cannot be made 
the basis of a great State's policy towards its most precious institu- 
tions, — its institutions of religion, learning and charity. As a rule, 
the amount of taxable property, real and personal, in a town or city 
is in no way diminished by the fact that a portion of its territory is 
exempted from taxation; and in many cases it is obvious that the 
taxable property is actually increased by reservations, whether nat- 
ural — like small sheets of water — or artificial, — like parks, squares, 
or open grounds about churches and public buildings. It is well 
known that, in many new towns and cities of the Westeyi States, it 
was a well-recognized and, in some cases, very successful device for 
raising the price of house-lots, and stimulating the speculation in land, 
to make a large reservation in the centre of the town for an academy 
or college. This is one of the reasons why there are such a multitude 
of colleges at the West. It is but a few years since several towns 
were bidding against each other to get the INIassachusetts Agricultural 
College planted within their borders. The town of Amherst paid 
$50,000 for this privilege. In Boston itself, the block of land on 
which the buildings of the Natural History Society and the Institute 
of Technology stand, was given to those corporations on the condition 
that, if the lands surrounding the reserved area did not rise in value, 
in consequence of the grant, enough to cover the estimated value of 
the reservation itself, then the two corporations should pay the de- 
ficiency. These corporations never had to pay anything for their 
land. The city had just as much value in land available for taxation 
after the gift was made to these two exempted societies as it would 
have had if no such gift had been made. It cannot be maintained that 
the exemption of the church lots in a country town is in any possible 
sense a burden to the town, or that it diminishes in any way the valu- 
ation or amount of the property in the town Avhich is available for 
taxation. On the contrary, every estate in the town is worth more 
to the occupant and to the assessor, because of the presence of those 
churches. The proposition that the presence, in a town or city, of 



ARGUMENT OF PRESIDENT ELIOT 1874 31 

exempted institutions diminishes the amount of taxable property 
therein is, therefore, not only incapable of proof, but is manifestly 
untrue in the vast majority of cases. There are, nevertheless, some 
cases in which a new exemption involves a real loss, though not with- 
out compensations, to the town or city from which the property was 
abstracted; and there are also cases in which the restoration of an 
exempted piece of property to taxation might be a real gain, in spite 
of considerable losses. When a benevolent citizen of one town gives 
$100,000 of personal property to an exempted institution situated in 
another town, the first town loses so much property which was there 
taxable, and the second town has the local benefit of the institution, 
if there be any. On the other hand, the town which loses in this, 
case has similar chances of gaining local benefits by gifts to institu- 
tions situated within its limits from citizens of other towns. Again, 
it by no means follows that the citizen who gave this $100,000 would 
have kept it in a taxable form at his place of residence, if he had not 
given it to an exempted institution. Such gifts are often — perhaps 
generally — made out of annual earnings ox sudden profits; and if 
the $100,000 had not been given to an exempted institution, it might 
have been unprofitably consumed, or lost, or given away to individ- 
uals resident elsewhere. A good deal of the personal property which 
now goes to churches, colleges and hospitals, would be consumed 
outright if it were not so saved. If the gift is made by will, instead 
of during life, there are more chances that the $100,000 would, in 
the distribution of the property, have been carried away from the 
testator's place of residence, at any rate. ^Mien a piece of real estate 
is transferred to an exempted institution for its own proper use, the 
local benefits of the institution, if there be any, are for the same town 
which gives up the taxes on the piece of real estate, and the with- 
drawal of that piece from productive uses probably brings some other 
piece into use at once, or at least sooner than would otherwise have 
happened. It would seem, at first sight, as if it would be clear gain 
to get a piece of land, once exempted, taxed again, and covered with 
taxable houses or stores; but there are always drawbacks on the 
gain. If Boston Common should be cut up and built upon, the con- 
veniently situated houses and stores built there would cause other 
houses and stores, less well placed, to be vacated, or to fall in value; 
and the improvement of real estate in the outskirts would be arrested 
or checked for a time. The estates which face the Common would 



32 EXEMPTIOX FROM TAXATION' 

also fall in value. It would be a permanent gain that the business 
of the city would probably be more conveniently done thereafter; 
and this indirect gain, whatever it might be, would idtimately be 
represented in the taxable property of the city. In this particular 
instance the productiveness of Boston would doubtless be diminished 
by the loss of health, vigor and spirits, on the part of the inliabitants, 
consetiuent upon the loss of the healthful open area. It is, then, 
quite impossible to maintain that any exemption is a clear loss to the 
place in which it exists. With every loss there come chances of ad- 
vantage. Sometimes the loss is great and the compensation small, 
and sometimes the advantages c[uite outweigh the loss. We have seen 
that, in the long run, there is no real loss to the State at large; and, 
in all probability, the local gains and losses of the various towns and 
cities of the Commonwealth would be found to be distributed Avith 
tolerable fairness, if the averaging period were long enough. Abso- 
lute equality in matters of taxation is unattainable. 

It is important to demonstrate satisfactorily the statement just 
made, that great advantages often accrue to a town or city from the 
presence of institutions exempted from taxation, advantages which 
much more than offset any losses which are real. A concrete instance 
will best illustrate this proposition; and no better instance can be 
chosen than that of Harvard University, an exempted institution occu- 
pying about seventy acres of land in the city of Cambridge, which 
land, with the buildings thereon and their contents, is alleged by the 
assessors to be worth from three to four millions of dollars. This 
case is perhaps as strong as any on the side of the objectors to the 
exemption, because the exempted area is large and its value is high, 
and on this very account it is a case well adapted to my present 
purj:)Ose. In the first place, all the land which faces or adjoins the 
imiversity's inclosures, is enhanced in value in consequence of that 
position. The open grounds of the univeristy have the same effect on 
the surrounding lands which open space of an ornamental character 
always have in cities. They improve the quality and value of the 
whole neighborhood. Secondly, the university brings to Cambridge 
a large amount of personal property, which becomes taxable there. 
The fifty families, of which the heads are teachers in the university, 
possess, on the average, an amount of personal property which much 
exceeds the property of the average family throughout the city. A 
considerable number of families are always living near the university 



ARGUMENT OF PRESIDENT ELIOT — 1874 33 

for the sake of educating their children. They come to Cambridge, 
for this express purpose, and stay there from four to seven years, or 
sometimes indefimtely. Many of these families have large means; 
in fact, few others could afford such a temporary change of residence. 
Again; families of former officers and teachers in the university con- 
tinue to live in Cambridge; and it is notorious that some of the larg- 
est properties taxed in the city are of this sort. Finally, families 
come to Cambridge to live because of the society which has gathered 
about the university. The amount of taxable personal property 
brought into ward one of Cambridge by the university in these several 
ways counts by millions. Accordingly, this ward is the richest ward 
in Cambridge, and has always been the most desirable part of the 
city to live in, as the character of its houses and of its population 
abundantly testifies. It has eighteen percent, of the houses in Cam- 
bridge and sixteen per cent, of the polls, while it has thirty per cent, 
of the taxable property. The ward had no natural advantage over 
the rest of the city, having, to this day, its fair share of bogs, salt 
marshes and sandy barrens. The greater part of its surface is but 
a few feet above high-water mark, and nothing but the presence of 
the university during two hundred and forty years has made it the 
desirable place of residence which it is. 

In still another way does the university bring taxable money to 
Cambridge. It collects from its students in Cambridge about $150,- 
000 ^ a year, adds thereto about $50,000 ^ of the income of its personal 
property, and pays this large sum out as salaries and wages to people 
who live in Cambridge. A large portion of this sum is annually 
taxed by the city as the income of individuals in excess of $2,000 a 
year. 

It is well understood that the building of a new factory in a village, 
or the introduction of sorhe new industry into a town, which gives 
employment to a large number of respectable people, is a gain to that 
village or tow^n. Whatever brings into a town a large body of re- 
spectable consumers benefits that town. Now, the university brings 
into Cambridge a large body of respectable consumers; there are 
fifty families of teachefe, about fifty more unmarried officers, about 
one thousand students, and about one hundred janitors, mechanics, 
laborers, bed-makers and waiters, a fair proportion of whom have 
families. As the great part of these persons belong to the refined 
and intelligent and well-to-do class, they consume- very much more 

1 In 1908-09, $750,000. 2 in 1908-09, $400,000. 



34 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

than the average of the community. The money thus spent in Cam- 
bridge is mainly brought from without, for the greater part of it is 
either derived from the personal ])roperty of the university, or it is 
money brought from home by the students. If it were not for the 
presence of this body of consumers, the land, houses and shops of 
that part of Cambridge would all be worth less than they are, and 
the assessors would find so much less to tax. 

It is a great advantage to a city to have a place of high education 
at its doors, jvist as it adds to the attractiveness and prosperity of a 
city to maintain good schools. Nearly one hundred ^ Cambridge 
young men are now members of the university. 

The grounds of the university adorn the city, and serve as protec- 
tion against spreading conflagrations. They give light and air, trees, 
shrubs, grass and birds to a part of the city which must soon become 
densely populated. In the future they will serve many of the purposes 
of a public park, while they will be maintained without expense to 
the city. The buildings and collections of the university, which are 
becoming more and more attractive, are a source of interest and 
pleasure to all the people of' the neighborhood. It is a curious illus- 
tration of the incidental advantages which Cambridge has reaped 
from the presence of the university, that printing and binding are 
still principal industries in the city, industries which give employ- 
ment to hundreds of work-people and a large taxable capital. The 
business of printing was planted in Cambridge by the college, and 
was maintained there by the college, in spite of great difficulties, for 
many years. 

Finally, the presence of the university gives distinction to the city. 
Cambridge is one of the famous spots of the country, and its citizens 
take pride and pleasure in its eminence. 

I have taken a single notable example through which to exhibit the 
various advantages which a town or city may derive from the presence 
of one of the exempted institutions. Mutatis mutandis, the princi- 
ples just laid down apply to almost all of them, with a force which 
varies with the locality, the nature of the institution, and the stage of 
its development. The benefits of many of the exempted charitable 
institutions are almost exclusively local. The direct benefits of a 
town's churches are largely, though not exclusively, local, and if the 
church buildings are beautiful, or interesting from historical asso- 
ciations, this indirect benefit is local too. It may not be impossible 

1 In 1908-09, 292. 



■ ARGUMENT OF PRESIDENT ELIOT 1874 35 

to pick out some exceptional institution of education or charity, or 
some single peculiarly placed church, to which these principles con- 
cerning the bearing of the exemption upon the interests of localities 
may not apply in their full force, or may not apply at all at a given 
moment; but the legislator should never be much influenced by the 
exceptions to general rules, or by momentary abnormal phenomena, 
or by the back eddies in a strong current of opinion. 

We have seen that exempted institutions are considered by towns 
desirable acquisitions, in spite of the exemption. There is competi- 
tion among them even for the state prison and the lunatic asylums; 
and they doubtless understand their own interests. But if the towns 
were allowed to tax the institutions now exempted, what a treasure 
would a college, or a hospital, with a large amount of personal prop- 
erty, be to a town! The town would have all the indirect local ben- 
efits of the institution, and the taxes on its property besides; and 
this unmerited addition to the property taxable in the town would 
correspond to no service performed, sacrifice made, or burden borne 
by the town. 

It has been often asserted, that to exempt an institution from tax- 
ation is the same thing as to grant it money directly from the public 
treasury. This statement is sophistical and fallacious. It is true 
that the immediate effect on the public treasur}' is in dollars and cents 
the same, whether Harvard University be taxed $50,000, and then 
get a grant of $50,000, or be exempted from taxes to the amount of 
$50,000, and get no grant. The immediate effect on the budget of 
the university would also be the same. The proximate effects of 
these two methods of state action in favor of religion, education and 
charity are however unlike, — so unlike, indeed, that one is a safe 
method, while the other is an unsafe method in the long run, though 
it may be justifiable under exceptional circumstances. The exemp- 
tion method is comprehensive, simple and automatic; the grant 
method, as it has been exhibited in this country, requires special 
legislation of a peculiarly dangerous sort, a legislation which inflames 
religious quarrels, gives occasion for acrimonious debates, and tempts 
to jobbery. The exemption method leaves the trustees of the insti- 
tutions fostered untrammelled in their action, and untempted to un- 
worthy arts or mean compliances. The grant method, as practised 
here, puts them in the position of importunate suitors for the public 
bounty, or worse, converts them into ingenious and unscrupulous 



36 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

assailants of the ])ublic treasury. Finally and ehlefly, — and to this 
point I ask special attention, — the exemption method fosters public 
spirit, while the grant method, persevered in, annihilates it. The 
State says to the public-spirited benefactor, "You devote a part of 
your private property forever to certain public uses; you subscribe 
to build a church, for example, or you endow an academy; we agree 
not to take a portion of the income of that property every year for 
other public uses, such as the maintenance of schools, prisons and 
highways." That is the whole significance of the exemption of any 
endowment from taxation.yv The State agrees that no part of the in- 
come of property, once private, which a former generation, or the 
present generation, has devoted forever to some particular public use 
shall be diverted by the State to other public uses. The exemption 
method is emphatically an encouragement to public benefactions. 
On the contrary, the grant method extinguishes public spirit. No 
private person thinks of contributing to the support of an institution 
which has once got firmly saddled on the public treasury. The 
exemption method fosters the public virtues of self-respect and re- 
liance; the grant method leads straight to an abject dependence upon 
that superior power — Government. The proximate effects of the 
two methods of state action are as diflferent as well-being from pau- 
perism, as republicanism from communism. It depends upon the 
form which the action of the State takes, and iipon the means whigh 
must be used to secure its favor, whether the action of the State be 
on the whole wholesome or pernicious. The exemption is whple- 
some, while the direct grant is, in the long run, pernicious. 

There has. been, of late years, a good deal of vague declapaation 
against endowments. AVe have heard much of the follies and wliim- 
seys of testators, and fearful pictures have been painted of dead hands 
stretched out from the cold grave to chill and oppress the living. We 
frequently read sneers and flings at those benefactors of the public 
who, living or dying, consecrate their money to religious, educational 
or charitable uses. In urging the abolition of the exemption, much 
use has been made of, this sort of appeal. What is its basis ? Are 
there any grounds w^hatever for jealousy of endowments ? Millions 
of private property in this State have been devoted to public uses of 
religion, education and charity. These endowments are all doing 
good work for the present generation, and are likely to do good to 
many generations to come. To how many injurious or useless, en- 



AKGUMENT OF PRESIDENT ELIOT — 1,874 37 

doAvments can any one point in Massachusetts ? There are persons 
who too hastily say that they hold Catholic churches to be injurious 
endoAvments ; but it must be a very bigoted Protestant that does not 
admit that a Catholic church is better for a Catholic population than 
no church at all. Catholics would doubtless, in these days, grant as 
much as that for a Protestant population. The judicious legislator, 
when he speaks of the church, doeS not mean any particuliar church, 
or the churches of any particular sect; he meahs the sum of all the 
churches, the aggregate of all religious institutions. Christian, Is- 
raelite and Greek, Roman and Protestant, Congregational, Baptist, 
Anglican and Quaker. To legislate, directly or indirectly, either for 
or against any particular religious belief or worship, would be utterly 
repugnant to all sound American opinion and practice. 

What silly fancy or absurd whim of a testator can be instanced in 
Massachusetts ? Is anybody in this country obstructed, as to his 
rights, duties or enjoyments, by any endo\ATiient or foundation pro- 
vided by the living or thfe dead ? The suggestion is to the last degree 
ungrateful and absurd. Because there have been found in England 
a few endowments six or seven centuries old, which, in the changed 
cdnditiou of society, had come to do more harm than good, shall we 
on this fresh continent, in this newly organized society, distrust all 
endowments ? Let us at least wait to be hurt before we cry out. If 
the time ever comes in this country when certain endowments, or 
classes of endowments, are found to do more harm than good to the 
community, legislation must then reform them, so as to prevent the 
harm and increase the good. We may be sure that our descendants 
of five centuries hence will have the sense to treat the endowments 
which we are establishing as England has treated some of her mediae- 
val endowments — reconstruct them, when they need it, without de- 
stroying them. Taxation would not only be no remedy for the folly 
of endowments, if there were foolish endowments; but it would 
actually abridge the moral right of the Stat6 to interfere with mis- 
chievous endowments. Institution^ which are fostered by the State 
through exemption from taxation must admit the ultimate right of 
the State to inquire into the administration of their affairs. An insti- 
tution, on the other hand, which got no help from the State, and was 
taxed like a private person, would have a right to claim all the immu- 
nity from state inquiry into its affairs which an individual may claim. 
Thus the State may and should demand from every exempted institu^ 



38 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

tion an annual statement of its affairs which could be given to the 
public; but no such statement for public use could properly be de- 
manded of an institution which paid taxes like any private citizen. 
Such an institution would have a moral right to the privacy which an 
individual is entitled to in a free country. 

In this country, when one wishes to scoff at endowments, he must 
draw on his imagination for his facts. There is but one well-founded 
charge to bring against our countrymen in this matter of setting apart 
private property for public uses of religion, education and charity. 
They scatter their gifts too widely, so that a greater number of insti- 
tutions are started than can be well maintained. But the remedy for 
this evil is to consolidate endowments, — not to tax them. This con- 
solidation has already begun, and will be brought about by the grad- 
ual enlightenment of public opinion on this subject. To draw a vivid 
picture of alleged scandals and abuses, and then propose some action 
of an irrelevant nature, desired for other reasons, as if it were a remedy 
for those scandals and abuses, is a well-known device of ingenious 
disputants; but it is a device which ought not to impose on clear- 
headed people. To prejudice the mass of the people against en- 
dowments is the part of a demagogue, for it is to induce them to act 
ignorantly in direct opposition to their own real interests; since 
endowments exist for the benefit of the great mass of the people, while 
they are a matter of but slight concern to the rich. The rich man does 
not care whether education be dear or cheap; he does not want the 
scholarships of a college; he does not need to send his children to a 
hospital; he could afford to keep a clergyman in his own family, if 
he cared to. It is the poor man who needs the church which others 
have built; the college which, because it has endowments, is able to 
offer his ambitious son a liberal education; the hospital which can 
give him, when disabled, attendance as skilful and careful as the 
rich man can buy. Moreover, the poor man has no direct interest 
in this proposed taxation of the institutions now exempted; it will 
not help him pay his poll-tax, nor lessen the amount of it; it will 
help no one but the property-holders. It is natural enough that a 
property-holder who has no public spirit should desire to escape his 
share of the charge of supporting institutions of public utility, on 
the ground that he feels no personal need of them. But that a man 
of property feels no want of institutions which are necessary to the 
security of the community, and does not believe in them, is no reason 



ARGUMENT OF PRESIDENT ELIOT — 1874 '6'i} 

for excusing him from his share of the support of these institutions. 
The doctrine that a citizen can justly be called upon to contribute to 
the support of those things only which he approves, or which are of 
direct benefit to him, would cripple our public schools as well as our 
colleges, and, in fact, would destroy the basis of almost all taxation. 

The INIassachusetts statute about the exemption, as it is adminis- 
tered, guards effectually against all the real evils described by the 
law teitn "mortmain," — a word, the translation of which seems to 
be such an irresistible rhetorical titbit for many who advocate taxing 
churches and carrying on universities by legislative grants. It is, 
indeed, inexpedient that religious, educational, or charitable cor- 
porations should hold large quantities of real estate for purposes of 
revenue; first, because experience shows that such corporate bodies 
do not, as a rule, improve real estate as steadily and promptly as 
individuals; and secondly, because the accmnulation of large quan- 
tities of land in single hands, although permissible, and often rather 
beneficial than hurtful to the community, is an operation which needs 
the natural check of death and distribution among heirs. This check 
is wanting in the case of permanent corporations. Now, the Massa- 
chusetts statute does not exempt from taxation real estate held by 
religious, educational and charitable institutions for purposes of 
revenue. On the contrary, all such property so held by these insti- 
tutions pays taxes precisely as if the pieces of property belonged to 
private individuals. If the Old South Church corporation owns 
stores, from which they derive income applicable to the purposes of 
their trust, those stores are taxed precisely as if they were the property 
of individuals. Harvard University owns a number of stores in the 
business part of Boston; with one exception (a store included in the 
exemption given by the charter of 1650), these stores are taxed just 
as if they belonged to an individual. If the Catholic Church under- 
takes to hold real estate for income, or as an investment, it has to pay 
taxes on such property, under the existing statute, like any private 
citizen. No exempted institution can hold real estate free of taxes 
except that which is fairly necessary for the purposes of the religious, 
educational or charitable trust. It would be a dishonorable evasion 
of the real intent of the statute to claim exemption on real estate which 
was bought with the intention of selling it again at a profit; and if 
any addition could be made to the statute which would make such a 
practice impossible, or would subject to penalties any institution 



40 EXEMPTION' FROM TAXATION 

which should be guiky of it, such an addition would be an improve- 
ment; although it is altogether likely that the offence contemplated 
has never, as a matter of fact, been committed. Of course, the mere 
fact that an institution has made a sale of, exempted land is not in 
itself evidence of an evasion of the statute; for poverty may comj)el 
an institution to part with land which it ought, in the real interest of 
the trust, to keep. It is also a perfectly legitimate transaction for an 
exempted institution to sell one site in order to occupy another. One 
cause of the agitation for the abolition of the exemption has been the 
distrust awakened by sales of church property at large profit in the 
older parts of our growing cities. But these sales are perfectly legiti- 
mate. Those who believe in the public utility of churches need only 
to be assured that the proceeds of these advantageous sales must be in- 
vested in new churches, — that none of the property can relapse into 
the condition of private property. This assurance the action of the 
Massachusetts Courts indisputably gives. It is hard to see why 
these transfers of churches from more valuable to less valuable city 
lots should seem a grievance to anybody. Whenever a city church 
sells its old site for a large sum, buys a new site for a much smaller 
sum, and with the balance erects a handsome church, the amount 
of property exelnpted from taxation remains precisely what it w^as 
before, and the city gains an ornamental building, llaere is less 
value in the exempted land than before, but more in the building. 
On the whole, considering the nature of American legislation concern- 
ing testamentary dispositions and the holding and transfer of land; 
considering the nature and history of our ecclesiastical bodies, and 
the mobility of our whole social fabric, there is probably no econom- 
ical evil from which an American State is so little likely to suffer as 
the mediseva:! evil of mortmain. To live in ai>prehension of it would 
be as little reasonable as for the people of Boston to live in constant 
dread of being overwhelmed by an eruption of lava from Blue Hill. 
/ It has been suggested by persons who apprehend that the institu- 
tions of religion, education and charity, or some of them, will get a 
disproportionate and injurious development, that only a limited exemp- 
tion should be allowed them, the limit to be fixed by legislation. If, 
however, the property of these corporations is really held and used for 
a high public purpose, it is hard to understand how it can be for the 
interest of the public to pass any laws wdiich tend to limit the amount 
of that property, — at least until more property has been set aside for 



ARGUMENT OF PRESIDENT ELIOT — 1874 41 

that purpose than can be well used. If it is inexpedient for the State 
to use for its common purposes — not religious or educational — any 
portion of the income of a church or an academy up to $5,000, why is 
it not also inexpedient to divert from religious or educational uses any 
portion of the income above $5,000 ? If the legislature could tell with 
certainty just how much property it was expedient for a church, or a 
college, or a hospital to have, then a limit for exempted property in 
each case would be natural and right; but the legislature cannot have 
this knowledge; and if they could acquire it for to-day, it would be 
outgrown to-morrow. Moreover, the ■ circumstances and functions of 
the various exempted institutions are so widely different and so change- 
able, that each institution would necessarily have its own limit pre- 
scribed by law, and would be incessantly besieging the legislature for 
a change in its limit; The legislature would be forced to keep remov- 
ing the limit of exemption, because in most cases there would be no 
logic in the limit. The more books there are in a library, the better; 
it would be absurd to exempt the first hundred thousand, and tax 
the second hundred thousand. The more good pictures, statues 
and engravings there are in an art museum, the better; it would be 
absurd to exempt a museum while it had few of these precious objects, 
and tax it when it got more, and so became more useful to the public. 
A sumptuary law to prevent the erection of beautiful churches, by tax- 
ing the excess of the value of a church above a certain moderate sum, 
would be singular legislation for Massachusetts. Who can tell how 
much money Harvard, or Amherst, or Williams could use legitimately 
to-day for the advantage of the State in advanced education ? If one 
knew to-day, the knowledge would be worthless next year. The one 
perfectly plain fact is, that no one of the institutions of advanced 
education in this State has one-half the property which it could use to 
advantage. It would be cruel mockery to enact that a woman, who can 
hardly buy calico and flannel, shall not wear velvet and sable. The 
amount of exempted real estate which any of the exempted institutions 
can hold is limited by natural causes. As such real estate is, as a rule, 
completely unproductive, the institution will not be likely to tie up 
any more of its property in that form than it can help. A limit to 
exempted real estate has seemed desirable to some persons, because it 
has sometimes happened in large cities that institutions of religion, 
education or charity, have changed their sites with great profit; but in 
such cases the community gets the whole advantage of the profit, in 



42 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

the increased work of the church, college or hospital. Moreover, such 
transactions imply a growing population, likely to make increasing 
demands upon the institutions of religion, education and charity, which, 
therefore, need all the new resources which the growth of population 
fairly brings them. 

Those who advocate limiting the amount of the exempted property 
which may be held for a religious, educational or charitable trust, seem 
to forget that it is the public which is the real enjoyer of all such 
property, and that it is the public only which is really interested in its 
increase, except as gratitude, affection or public spirit may prompt 
individuals to share this public interest. All such trusts are gifts "to 
a general public use, which extends to the poor as well as the rich," to 
quote Lord Camden's definition of a charity in the legal sense. They 
are gifts for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, by bringing 
their minds under the influence of religion or education, or by relieving 
their bodies from disease. They are trusts in the support and execu- 
tion of which the whole public is concerned, on which account they are 
allowed, unlike private trusts, to be perpetual. Now, for the public 
to make laws which tend to discourage private persons from giving 
property to the public for its own uses, is as unwise as for the natural 
heir to put difficulties in the way of a well-disposed relative who is 
making his will. The fact that the property of these public trusts is 
administered by persons who are not immediately chosen or appointed 
by the public, obscures to some minds the essential principle that the 
property is really held and used for the public benefit; but the mode 
of administration does not alter the uses, or make the property 
any less property held for the public. Exjjerience has shown that 
many of the religious, educational and charitable works of the com- 
munity can be peacefully, frugally and wisely carried on by boards of 
trustees; and that method has been preferred in England and the 
United States. On the continent of Europe these functions are dis- 
charged by government; but, under both methods of administration, 
the functions are public functions. The fact that nobody has any per- 
manent interest in the property of such trusts, except the public, is 
well brought out by imagining what would occur if a church, or an 
academy, or an insane asylum should be taxed, and nobody should 
come forward to pay the taxes. It is nobody's private interest to pay 
such taxes. The city or town could proceed to sell the church or other 
building belonging to the trust; but if it did so, the effect would be 



ARGUMENT OF PRESIDENT ELIOT — 1874 43 

that a piece of property, which had been set apart for public uses, 
would become private property again, unless some benevolent persons 
should, for the love of God or the love of their neighbors, buy the 
property over again for its original public uses. A city might as well 
levy taxes on its city hall, and sell it for taxes in default of payment. 
It remains to consider the effect of abolishing the exemption. No 
church could be maintained upon ground which would be very valuable 
for other purposes, and costly church edifices would be out of the 
question. A society whose land and building were worth $300,000 
would have to pay $4,500 a year in taxes, besides all the proper ex- 
penses of a church. The burden would be intolerable. The loss to the 
community, in that pure pleasure which familiar objects of beauty give, 
would be unspeakable. The village could spare its spired wooden 
church as ill as the city its cathedral. Cities have learned that fine 
architecture in their own buildings is a justifiable luxury. On the 
same betterment principle handsome churches are profitable to the 
public as well as delightful. I say nothing of the grievous moral 
loss to the whole people which would result from crippling the 
existing churches, and making it harder to build the new ones 
which our growing population should have. That loss would be deep 
and wide-spread and lasting; but other pens than mine can better 
depict it. Educational institutions would be obliged to take the 
taxes out of the income of their personal property or out of their tuition 
fees. The fifty or sixty thousand dollars which the city of Cambridge 
would take next year from Harvard University would be deducted 
from the money now available for salaries of teachers. This sum rep- 
resents the pay of from twelve to fifteen professors, or of a much 
larger number of teachers of the lower grades. Moreover, the sum 
thus withdrawn from teaching would annually increase with the rising 
value of land in Cambridge; while it can by no means be assumed 
that the personal property and tuition fees of the University would 
increase proportionally. The burden might easily become wholly 
unbearable. The barbarous character of the proposition to tax 
property devoted to educational purposes may be well brought 
home by specifying a feAv of the items of what would be the tax on 
Harvard University. Memorial Hall, with the two acres of land in 
which it stands, would be taxable for not less than $550,000 next 
year, and there is no telling the price per foot to which the land may 
rise, for it is well situated between three good streets. Eight thou- 



44 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

sand dollars would ho next year's tax on that monument of pure devo- 
tion to the j)ul)lie good, and every year the ta:^ would increase. 
Charlestown might as well be allowed to tax Bunker Hill Monument, 
as Cambridge to tax Memorial Hall. To commemorate the virtue of its 
one hundred and forty graduates and students, who died for their coun- 
try in the war of the Rebellion, would cost the University the salaries 
of at least two professorships every year, in addition to the original 
cost of the land and buildings and the maintenance of the buildings. 
Moreover, every added picture or bust would entail an additional 
contribution on the part of the University to the ordinary expenses of 
the city of Cambridge. To place Charles Sumner's bust in the Hall 
w^ould increase the annual taxes by $7.50 and to hang there the por- 
trait of Col. Robert G. Shaw% who was killed at Fort Wagner, would 
give $15 a year to the city. The College Library may be freely con- 
sulted by all persons, whether connected with the University or not. 
With the building which contains it, this collection of books could 
hardly be valued at less than $300,000, — a sum very far short of its 
cost. There would, therefore, be a tax upon that librar}- of perhaps 
$4,500 a year now; and, as about $10,000 worth of books are bought 
each year, the annual Increase of the tax would be sure. If it is inex- 
pedient Jliat such a library should be exempt from taxation, how 
wrong it must be that cities and towns should pay all the expenses of 
public libraries, besides exempting them from taxation. The Obser- 
vatory, an institution maintained solely for the advancement of 
knowledge, and having no regular income except from its endowments, 
is necessarily surrounded by o{)en grounds, embracing several acres, 
and it must remain so protected, if good w^ork is to be done there. 
The taxes on this land w^ould eat up half the income of the Observa- 
tory, now, and in a few years the whole income. The richer and more 
populous Cambridge became, the heavier would be the charges u])on 
the University, for the higher would be the price of land throughout 
the city. It Is to he observed, that the facts and illustrations used 
to support the proposition that institutions of religion, education and 
charity must be taxed, are mostly drawn from the rich towns and 
cities of the Commonwealth — not from the country villages. The 
advisability of taxing churches, colleges and hospitals, does not seem 
to suggest Itself until a community gets very rich, — until Its territory 
Is at a great price per square foot. When Cambridge w'as a country 
village, she was glad to give the College a site for its first building. 



ARGUMENT OF PRESIDENT ELIOT — 1874 45 

The abolition of the exemption would reduce the service of all 
the institutions of advanced education in the State from 20 to 25 per 
cent, at present, and this diminution of efficiency would grow greater 
year by year. All the academies, colleges, professional schools, and 
scientific or technical schools, all the libraries not town libraries, all 
the museums of art or natural history, would see from one-fifth to 
one-quarter of their income diverted from education, and applied to 
ordinary city and town expenditures. An extravagant city or town 
government might at any time demand much more than one-fourth of 
their income. Precious institutions, which render great services to 
the whole States, or perhaps to the nation, would be at the mercy of a 
single local government. 



EXTRACT FROM THE 

REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED TO 

INQUIRE INTO THE EXPEDIENCY OF REVISING 

AND AMENDING THE LAWS RELATING TO 

TAXATION AND EXEMPTION 

THEREFROM. 

January, 1875. 



47 



EXTRACT FROM THE 

REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED TO 

INQUIRE INTO THE EXPEDIENCY OF REVISING 

AND AMENDING THE LAWS RELATING TO 

TAXATION AND EXEMPTION 

THEREFROM. 

January, 1875. 



Exemptions from Taxation. 

Since, in the resolve requiring our appointment and assigning 
our duties, "the laws of the state relating to taxation" held the first 
place, and since these embrace incomparably vaster pecuniary inter- 
ests, and involve questions of much greater difficulty and importance 
than the laws relating to the other topic assigned us, we have given 
to these the chief place in our report. But we have not been unmind- 
ful of the laws relating to exemption from taxation, respecting which 
we submit the following considerations. 

By existing statutes (G. S. ch. 11, §5) the following persons and 
polls are exempt from taxation by this Commonwealth. 

First. The property of the United States. 

Second. The property of the Commonwealth, except real estate 
of which the Commonwealth is in possession under a mortgage for 
condition broken. 

Third. The personal property of literary, benevolent, charitable 
and scientific institutions incorporated within this Commonwealth, 
and the real estate belonging to such institutions, occupied by them 
or their officers for the purposes for which they were incorporated. 

Fourth. All property belonging to common-school districts, the 
mcome of which is appropriated to the purposes of education. 

Fifth. The Bunker Hill Monument. 

Sixth. The household furniture of every person, not exceeding 
one thousand dollars in value, his wearing apparel, farmino- utensils, 
and mechanics' tools necessary for carrying on his business. 

49 



50 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

Seventh. Houses of religious worship and the pews and furniture 
(except for parochial purposes), but portions of such houses appro- 
priated for purposes other than religious worship shall be taxed at the 
value thereof to the owners of the houses. 

Eighth. Cemeteries, tombs and rights of burial, so long as the 
same shall be dedicated for the burial of the dead. 

N4nth. The estate, both real and personal, of incorporated agri- 
cultural societies. 

Tenth. The property to the amount of five hundred dollars of a 
widow or unmarried female, and of any female minor whose father 
is deceased, if her whole estate, real and personal, not otherwise 
exempted from taxation, does not exceed in value the sum of one 
thousand dollars. 

Eleventh. Mules, horses and neat-cattle less than one year old, 
and swine and sheep less than six months old. 

Tivelfth. The polls and any portion of the estates of persons who, 
by i-eason of age, infirmity and poverty are, in the judgment of the 
assessors, unable to contribute fully towards the public charges. 

Thirteenth. Beet-sugar manufactories, for ten years from 1872. 
(1872, 327). 

Fourteenth. So much of the income from a profession, trade or 
employment as exceeds the sum of two thousand dollars. (G. S. ch. 
11, § 4;. 1873, 354). 

The first of the above-enumerated classes, the Commonwealth has 
neither the power nor the right to tax. 

The second class a small number of economists advocate the pro- 
priety of taxing, on the ground, as they term it, that there ought not 
to be any "deadheads" in taxation, and that the Commonwealth 
ought to keep as clean and as rigorous accounts with herself as with 
her subjects. But any such doubtful advantage would hardly com- 
pensate for the additional cost which the process would involve, and 
this subject may probably be dismissed as not needing any extended 
consideration. (Rossire et al. v. Boston. 4 Allen, 57.) 

But, as many persons claim that the third class ought no longer to 
be exempted, we have given to this question very careful attention, 
and, as the result, we recommend that the existing laws of the Com- 
monwealth relating thereto remain unchanged. (See opinion of 
minority.) 

Briefly stated, the following positions upon this point seem to us to 
be sound: 



REPORT or COMMISSION — 1875 51 

Taxation is a certain requirement which the state makes upon its 
subjects for the public welfare. Though nominally and technically 
levied upon property, it is really laid upon persons, and is a lawful 
demand that they use their property not solely for their own good, but 
also for the good of others. It is not, indeed, a demand for property 
as such, but only for a particular species of property, viz., money. 
As already remarked, taxation is not a payment to society for certain 
social privileges and immunities, but it is the enforcement of the right, 
and the fulfilment of the obligation revealed in the very existence of 
the state and its subjects. Like all the service which the state requires, 
this involves the righteous surrender or subjection of the individual 
will to the will of the community. When this self-surrender is free 
and complete, there is nothing more to be desired, either on the part 
of the individual or the state. The perfect individual and the perfect 
state would both be found in the free and full surrender oP every 
individual to the welfare of every other. Whatever favors this most 
desirable attainment, should receive every encouragement. All gifts, 
whereby an individual shows any true self-forgetfulness for the public 
good, will not only be w^elcomed, but the disposition to make them 
will be encouraged and fostered by every wise state. As a general 
rule, all such gifts are in the exact line of what the state seeks to secure 
by its taxation, and there is really just as great an absurdity in taxing 
them as there would be in retaxing the taxes themselves. Instead of 
taxing such gifts, the state might more profitably encourage them by 
bounties. She should encourage all acts of every sort whereby a 
man is disposed to render an unselfish service to his fellow-men, 
always indeed superintending such acts and repressing whatever 
would be injurious, but also always fostering that self-forgetfulness, 
in the free and full exercise of which, by every individual, consists 
the highest well-being, both of himself and the state. Property, 
which passes out of private hands a free-will offering for public uses, 
and which loses thereby its entire power of reproducing itself for private 
gain or emolument, deserves very different treatment, for it must 
ever stand in a very different relation to the state from that which pri- 
vate parties can still control for private ends. // 

The only proper question in such a matter is, whether the gifts are 
really for the public good. An individual may be truly unselfish, and 
yet not wholly wise, and might generously, but ingorantly, direct his 
gifts in a way for the public injury. But in such a case the proper 



52 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

course for the state would be, not to tax such gifts, but to refuse or 
prohibit them. 

It is very possible that the property given to our charitable, educa- 
tional or religious institutions, may, at any time, find itself directed, 
either by the will of its donors or its managers, into channels not 
favorable to the public welfare, and it is very clear that over all such 
matters the state should exercise her wise supervision and just author- 
ity. We believe that the machinery for such an exercise is already 
provided by our courts, but if not, we recommend the enactment of 
statutes by which, even if individuals or corporations devote property, 
ostensibly for charitable, educational or religious purposes, but in a 
way not favorable or even prejudicial to charity, education or religion, 
such mistakes may be law^fuUy corrected. 

It would be a singular contradiction, not only to the treatment of 
education, w^hich has given this Commonwealth such glory in the past, 
but also to the entire educational system for which Massachusetts 
has such eminence at the present time, if we should put the slightest 
bar upon, or fail to give every encouragement to any efforts for the 
promotion among our people of knowledge in every department of 
literature, science or art. The original constitution of the state still 
remains unaltered in its declaration that, — 

"Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among 
the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their 
rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportuni- 
ties and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, 
and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of 
legislatures and magistrates, in. all future periods of this Covimonwealth, 
to cherish the interests of literature and science, and all seminaries of 
them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and 
grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and 
public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agri- 
culture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural 
history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the ])rinciples of 
humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry 
and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, 
good humor, and all social affections and generous sentiments among 
the people." (Chap. 5, § 2.) 

This is, to-day, the fundamental rule for the guidance and control 
of the legislature in its dealings with the subject. Before and since 



REPORT OF COMMISSION — 1875 53 

its formal announcement, in 1780, the practice of the state has been 
uniform and unbroken to obey its commands and encourage religion, 
science and charity, by giving the property donated to those objects 
immunity from the burdens of taxation. Werg not the donors of 
such funds justified in believing that our legislatures and magistrates, 
in all future periods of the Commonwealth, would observe their duty 
in cherishing and preserving these immunities? Would not their 
repeal,, so far as it would bring under taxation, funds heretofore donated 
in the belief that the immunity would be permanent, savor of a breach 
of the public faith? 

We now levy an educational tax amounting, for 1873, to $3,889,^ 
053.80, for the support of our admirable system of common and nor- 
mal schools, and whatever any one might think of this sum, whether 
too much or too little, no one will probably complain of the principle 
upon which such a tax is laid. (Report of secretary of board of educa- 
tion, 1873, p. 108.) Every one acknowledges that the state would 
be derelict in duty and forgetful of all of her high interests, if making 
no provision for the education of her people. But the same arguments 
which require the establishment of common schools, require also, 
and more emphatically, the establishment of higher seminaries of 
learning, academies, colleges and professional schools. As a matter 
of fact, these higher schools have not grown out of the lower, and do 
not rest upon them, but the higher school is, historically, first, and the 
lower one is not its precursor, but its product; there is no law of evo- 
lution by which the common school grows up into the college, for, 
as an historical fact, the college is actually first, and gives birth to the 
common school. No one can trace the history of education in any 
country in Europe, without noticing that the university is, in every 
instance, the mother and the foster nurse of common schools. It is 
not by the lower education of the many that we come to have the 
higher education of the few, but the exact converse of this' is the uni- 
versal rule. The education of the many is always dependent on the 
education of the few. 

It is interesting to note how clear a knowledge of this great fact was 
entertained by the early founders of this Commonwealth. At the 
outset of their educational work, and as its foundation, they estab- 
lished Harvard College as early as 1636, and the sight must be very 
dim which does not see the dependence of the entire system of the 
common education of the people upon this institution alone, or the 



54 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

strength and sustenance which Harvard and her sister colleges give 
to the common schools of the Commonwealth to-day. 

The first order for the establishment and support of common schools 
in the colony of Massachusetts Bay, was issued by the general court 
in 1G47, and is as follows: — 

"It being one chiefe project of yt ould deluder, Satan, to keepe men from 
the knowledge of ye Scriptures, as in formr times by keeping ym in an un- 
knowne tongue, so in these lattr times by pswading from ye use of tongues, 
yt so at least ye true sence & meaning of ye originall might be clouded by 
false glosses of saint seeming deceivers, yt learning may be not buried in ye 
grave of or fathrs in ye church & coin on wealth, the Lord assisting or en- 
deavors, — 

"It is therefore ordred, yt evry towneship in this jurisdiction aftr ye Lord 
hath increased ym to ye number of 50 householdrs, shall then forthwth 
apoint one wthin their towne to teach all such children as shall resort to him 
to write & reade, whose wages shall be paid eithr by ye parents or mastrs of 
such children, or by ye inhabitants in genrall, by way of supply, as ye maior 
prt of those yt ordr ye prudentials of ye towne shall appoint; provided, those 
yt send their children be not oppressed by paying much more yn they can 
have ym taught for in othr townes; & it is furthr ordered, yt where any towne 
shall increase to ye numbr of 100 families or householdrs, they shall set up a 
grainer schoole, ye mr thereof being able to instruct youth so farr as they may 
be fited for ye university, provided, yt if any towne neglect ye pformance 
hereof above one yeare, yt every such towne shall pay 5£ to ye next schoole 
till they shall prforme this order." (Records of Mass. Bay Col., 1647, vol. 2, 
p. 203.) 

This seems to have been copied from an order issued three years 
earUer by the united colonies of Connecticut, and which was there 
coupled with a provision for the maintenance of poor scholars in 
Cambridge. The early impulse to all this came not from the unedu- 
cated, but in both Massachusetts and Connecticut, "the natural and 
acknowledged leaders in the enterj^rise, the men who, by their religious 
character, wealth, social position and previous experience in conduct- 
ing large business operations, commanded public confidence in church 
and Commonwealth, were educated men." (Barnard's legislation 
respecting common schools of Conn. 163(>-38.) 

Though Harvard College has received munificent gifts from the 
state, her largest endowments, as well as those of other colleges, have 
come from private benefactions. But for these, the colleges would 
have had no existence, or would have owed their establishment and 
support wholly to the state, as is the case with the great educational 



REPORT OF COMMISSION — 1875 55 

institutions of the Old World. Nowhere has private beneficence 
more lavishly released the state from the necessity of taxing its sub- 
jects for the support of higher institutions of learning than in the 
United States, and in no one of these has this been more conspicuous 
than in our own Commonwealth. It will not prove wise economy 
for the state to repress such beneficence by laying a tax upon its exer- 
cise, nor is it a very enlightened or comprehensive view which can only 
behold the taxes which are not levied upon the property of these insti- 
tutions, and does not see the much larger taxes which would have to 
be laid in behalf of education, had not private beneficence relieved 
the state of so large a part of its work. If a penny saved is as good as 
a penny earned, a pound saved is surely better to the possessor than 
the penny he has lost. 

It should be remem.bered that the exemption in question, so far as 
real estate is concerned, only relates to the premises from which these 
institutions derive no revenue. 

It should be noted, also, that, as a matter of fact, there is no practical 
inequality in the working of this exemption, calling for its removal, 
since the average rate of taxation in the towns most largely endowed 
with this class of exempted property, is less than the average rate 
through the Commonwealth. * * * 

We have received from Messrs. Francis E. Abbot and Charles W. 
Eliot, valuable contributions to the discussion of the general question 
relating to the exemption of property devoted to literary, charitable 
and religious uses, and solicit the attention of the legislature to their 
papers, given in the Appendix, (pp. 151-160.) * * * 

Respectfully submitted, 

THOMAS HILLS. 
JULIUS H. SEELYE. 
JAMES M. BARKER. 



Report of the Minority. 

Unable to agree with the conclusions of my colleagues in regard to 
an important class of property now wholly exempt from assessment, 
the reasons that influence me can probably be better stated if the 



56 



EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 



whole question of the exemption from taxation of literary and chari- 
table organizations and churches is considered from the stand-point 
from which the minority of the commission views the subject. 

In a question of exemption, the practical side of the subject, the 
amount of property shielded from the common burden, and the inquiry 
as to the rapidity with which it is accumulating, naturally precede the 
consideration of the more important question of the justice or expedi- 
ency of the exemption. (Property exempt in 1870 — churches, $22,- 
862, 697; literary and charitable, $14,231,294. Ho. Doc. 216, 1870. 
1874 — churches, $30,242,800; Ht. and charitable, $23,221,000. Ap- 
pendix, pp. 470-533.) The apparent great increase in this property 
which the statistics disclose, is no doubt due in part to a more careful 
appraisement, under the provisions of the recent law, than that made 
four years since under a legislative order, summarily executed. (1874, 
227.)' 

But, on the other hand, an inspection of the tables in the Appendix 
leaves no doubt that the total of $53,463,800 is much below the real 
value of the property held by the organizations there classified. The 
small amount of personal property returned is conclusive upon this 
point. The Commonwealth endeavored, some years since (1864, 239. 
1865, 271.), to ascertain the amount of personal estate held in trust 
by this description of property-holders. The success of the effort can 
be measured by an inspection of a volume of some two hundred and 
fifty pages, which indicates that the personal property held at that time 
would aggregate to a large amount, and that this class of investors as 
little desired as any other in the community to make a public exhibit 
of their accumulations. (Report of sec. of Commonwealth, 1866). 

But it may be said, Do you object to the prosperity of these institu- 
tions ? In proportion to their resources, are their means for doing 
good. To complain of their having too much property is as unreason- 
able as to complain of having too much virtue, knowledge and charity. 
The answer would seem to be: We do not object to the success of 
these organizations; on the contrary, we rejoice at it. But when the 
state requires a revenue, and orders that the property of the community 
shall be assessed to supply it, valuable property should not be left out 
of the assessment because the holders are using it to promote religion, 
education and benevolence. 

Upon a different view, it would be difficult to say why a good cor- 
poration should be exempt and a benevolent citizen taxed. 



MINORITY REPORT — 1875 57 

Upon one ground, and one alone, can exemption from assessments, 
which ought to be common burdens, be justified. If these religious, 
charitable and educational associations are agents or instrumentalities 
of the state, doing the work which but for them the Commonwealth 
herself must do, and doing it as well and at as little cost as the officers 
or agents of the government would do it; or if an organization whose 
sphere is beyond the duty of the state, but so hnportant to her best 
interests that it must be sustained at any cost, and cannot sustain itself 
and do its work if its property is taxed, — if these conditions exist, 
the state is justified in increasing the assessments of all others that these 
institutions may be exempt. Few will be found who are not ready to 
admit that it is the duty of the state to provide for the sick in body or 
in mind, the poor, and all others whose necessities demand that relief 
which we call "charity," — and few who will not agree that among 
the highest obligations which the Commonwealth owes to her children, 
is an education limited only by the capacity, the ambition, and the 
opportunities of each seeker after knowledge/ These duties and 
obligations belong to the state, not to any individual or association. 
It follows that the state has a right to select her agents, and may select 
organizations which she has called into being, or permits to exist. 
But the agent is entitled to no exemption, except as the representative 
of the state, which has the right to say — if, in her judgment, the re- 
quired duty is not being done well or economically — that she prefers 
different agents. 

If the hospital, or college, is doing the work of the state, it follows 
that the property necessarily used in such service should be exempt; 
but this exemption should not be allowed to extend to real property 
beyond that needed for actual accommodation and use. Judicial 
decisions have declared that, as the laws now stand, there is practically 
no limit to the amount of land a literary or charitable organization can 
withdraw from assessment, except the ability of the corporation to 
purchase, and the discretion of its managers. (Wesleyan Academy v. 
Wilbraham. 99 INIass. 599. Mass. Gen. Hos. v. Somerville. 101 
Mass. 319.) A corporation receiving exemption from taxation because 
it is doing the work of the state, should be permitted to hold no dead 
property; certainly no unproductive or unused real estate. Its exemp- 
tion can be maintained only upon the theory that its real estate is 
reasonably necessary for the proper performance of its duties, and that 
its other property is actively employed in the work it is doing as the 



58 EXEMPTION I'ROM TAXATION 

representative of the Commonwealth. The state gives immunity 
from taxation to property used in her service, and it should not be 
granted in advance of that use. 

The Commonwealth, in granting a charter to a literary or charitable 
corporation, limits the amount of property it may hold. The right 
to ascertain at any time the amount of property held, must be as 
undoubted as the right to establish a limitation. 

Probably the principal reason that applications to the legislature for 
power to hold additional property are not more numerous from cor- 
porations holding exempt estates, may be found in the fact that the 
limitation can be largely and legally exceeded. An organization is 
permitted to hold one hundred thousand dollars by its act of incorpora- 
tion; it expends that amount in the purchase of land and the erection 
of buildings. Its location being well chosen, its real estate advances 
in value, and in time is worth double its cost. By existing laws, this 
excess of one hundred per cent, over the amount it was authorized to 
hold cannot be taxed. If it is properly used in the service of the state, 
there is no reason why the whole amount should not be exempt for the 
same reasons which justified the original exemption; but of the justice 
or expediency of this additional immunity, the state should be the 
judge. The exemption granted by the legislature should always be 
deducted from the present value of the property, and any excess above 
the legal limitation taxed. Upon an application for an additional 
exemption, the question as to the amount of property necessary for 
the duties to be performed, the efficiency and economy manifested 
in the work, and the nature and character of the investments, would 
all be open to legislative inquiry and discretion. 

Some corporations, exempt from taxation, have charters in which 
the limitation is based upon the annual income of their investments. 
It is difficult to see how such a provision can be termed a limitation, as 
applied to real estate occupied by the corporation. The discretion of 
the officers, and the wealth of the organization, is the measure of the 
restraint as to the area to be acquired. If used by the corporation for 
the purposes for which it was created, or in the form of vacant land not 
used at all, no income would accrue, and the limitation would be ab- 
solutely without force. (99 Mass. 599. 101 Mass. 319.) Such a form 
of exemption is unnecessary for any proper purpose. All charters of 
this character should be amended, and the discretion of the legislature 
as to the amount of property to be held free from taxation by its literary 



MINORITY REPORT — 1875 59. 

and charitable organizations should be expressed in uniform terms. 
It would be a safe rule to refuse all charters to petitioners who were 
unwilling to either state unequivocally the amount of property they 
desired to hold, or to trust future legislatures with the question of the 
expediency of increasing their exemption. 

For many years the state, it is believed, with only a single exception, 
has refused to permit portions of houses of religious worship to be used 
for secular purposes, without subjecting the proportion of the edifice 
so used, to taxation. (1857, c. 154. G. S. c. 11, § 5, clause 7.) All 
property, both real and personal, held by a religious society as a minis- 
terial fund, is assessed at the full value. (lb. c. 11 , § 13.) The income 
of the stores under the church, or of the fund left by some benevolent 
parishioner, may be sacredly devoted to the maintenance of that wor- 
ship, for the benefit of which the church itself is relieved from assess- 
ment. But the law refuses to look beyond the fact that the property 
is used for the purpose of producing an income, and orders its taxation. 

A similar rule applies to the real estate of literary and charitable 
institutions, but not to their personal property, — that, whatever may 
be its character or use, is wholly exempt. (lb. c. 11, § 5, clause 3.) 
It is not easy to perceive why this discrimination should be made, 
unless it is claimed that these corjjorations are of more benefit to the 
state than the church, or need, to a greater extent, its support and 
assistance. The rule of exemption for the religious society would 
seem to be the correct one, and should be applied to every corporation 
that occupies or uses property exempt from taxation. 

If it is claimed that the assessment of the personal property of these 
corporations would impair their usefulness by diminishing their re- 
sources, and consequently their power to do the work they were char- 
tered to perform, the correctness of the position must be conceded. 
By precisely the amount assessed, are the means of every person and 
corporation paying a tax diminished for all other purposes. "When 
the state discontinued the exemption of the polls and estates of clergy- 
men, of the presidents and professors of our colleges, and other public 
teachers,* the income of the institutions, with which they were con- 
nected, was reduced to the extent that the salaries of these officers 
were raised to meet their additional expense. 

* Previous to 1821 the exemption of the polls and estates of these classes was for 
their full amount. By chap. 107 of the Acts of 1821, the exemption was not allowed 
to exceed eight thousand dollars, and in 1828 was removed altogether. 



60 EXEMPTION I]iO:\I TAXATION 

But because such an effect was produced, and will be repeated if the 
income-paying personal property of literary and charitable cori)ora- 
tions shall be assessed, it does not follow that the repeal of the exemp- 
tion was not then and would not now be right. If the contrary is 
claimed, by what reasoning can that action of the state be justified 
which exempts the income-paying personal estate of the academy or 
benevolent society and taxes that of the church, — which increases the 
usefulness of the college and hospital by the remission of a tax upon 
mortgages and bank stock, and decreases it by an assessment of the 
real estate from which an income is derived ? 

The pressure and discontent caused by the increased rates of local 
taxation in England, ha\'e caused the government of that country 
recently to give special attention to the subject. In a bill which was 
introduced as a reformatory measure, it was proposed to do away with 
all exemptions previously accorded to literary and charitable corpora- 
tions, and tax for local purposes even the property of the government. 
Speaking for the ministry, the Hon. Geo. J. Goschen said: "We pro- 
pose to take one intelligible and uniform system, and to render every 
hereditament, corporeal or incorporeal, liable to these burdens." 
"The effect of these proposals will be that government property will 
be rated ; but the rule must be universal. We believe that the claims 
of government property to exemption are very considerable; and if 
claims are set up on behalf of municipal buildings, charities and the 
like, it must clearly be understood that it may be necessary for us to 
reconsider our decision on this point." (Report of speech in House 
of Commons on local taxation, April 3, 1871, p. 200.) 

It is conceded, that so far as these corporations are doing the work 
of the state, their exemption from assessment is a proper exercise of 
power for the good of all.\ \ But it cannot be admitted, and will hardly 
be claimed, that any partial service entitles the organization, by which 
it is rendered, to total exemption ; or, in other words, if one-half of the 
real estate of a corporation is used in the service of the public, and 
therefore exempt, that the other half, though used for other purposes, 
should be relieved from assessment as a payment for the services 
rendered by the first half. Remission from assessment can be granted 
only because the state does not intend to tax its own agencies. The 
Commonwealth pays its indebtedness by other methods than exemp- 
tion from taxation. 

By no existing law can the state, or its officers, know the character 



MINORITY REPORT — 1875 61 

or extent of the literary or charitable work of corporations receiving 
by exemption, an annual grant equal to the tax upon the property 
held by them. The state, consequently, does not know if the only 
condition that will justify exemption has been complied with. She 
cannot tell whether an organization, which confines its operations 
solely to the members of a single sect, is not protecting from assess- 
ment an ecclesiastical property largely exceeding in value the houses 
of religious worship, to which, for denominational purposes, her 
exemption was intended to be limited. Neither can the state know 
whether what purports to be a charity is not exercising a harmful, 
rather than a beneficial, influence on the community; or, if the work 
be of a character that would meet with approval, whether it is not 
being done at such a cost as to render a change of agencies needful. 

By existing methods, a charter having been obtained, or an organiza- 
tion effected under general laws, no state supervision of any kind is 
ever exercised or expected. Such diversity of practice has grown up 
under our exemption laws, that estates claimed to be occupied for 
charitable purposes will, under precisely similar circumstances, be held 
for assessment in some localities, and relieved from all taxation in 
others. The state has the undoubted right to know how all who claim 
to represent her are doing the work they assume to perform. She has 
an equal right to accept services, and to reject or discontinue them. 
Existing for the good of the whole community, and seeking that end, 
she makes no contract by implication, and can be accused of no breach 
of faith when she holds her agents to strict account, or, discharging them 
from any position of trust or employment, withholds the compensation 
previously granted. But the power of the state should be exercised 
understandingly. She should know, by her proper officers, the nature 
and extent of the services rendered to the public by all who receive 
exemption as the agents of the Commonwealth, and the full amount 
and character of the property they hold. 

It is therefore recommended that all literary and scientific institutions 
be required to annually report to the board of education, in such form 
as that body shall designate; that all benevolent and charitable cor- 
porations be required to make like returns to the board of state charities; 
that all these organizations make such returns of all property held by 
them as the tax commissioner may require; that all income-paying 
personal property held by these corporations be taxed; and in any 
vear, when the returns are not made by any corporation, or when the 



02 EXEMPTION IHOM TAXATION' 

exemption of the property of any corporation has ceased, that the tax 
commissioner notify the local authorities to assess the real estate of 
such corporation. It is also recommended that all charters hereto- 
fore granted to literary or charitable corporations, where the limita- 
tion as to the amount of property is based upon the income of the 
estate, be amended in such a manner that the limitation shall state the 
amount of property that may be held. And, also, that all excess above 
the amount legally exempted, as determined by the market value of 
the property at the date of assessment, be taxed at the same rate as 
other property, (pp. 181-189.) * * * 

Respectfully submitted, 

THOMAS HILLS. 



EXTRACTS FROM THE 
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION APPOINTED TO IN- 
QUIRE INTO THE EXPEDIENCY OF REVISING 
AND AMENDING THE LAWS OF THE COMMON- 
WEALTH RELATING TO TAXATION. 

October, 1897. 



63 



EXTRACT FROM THE 
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION APPOINTED TO IN- 
QUIRE INTO THE EXPEDIENCY OF REVISING 
AND AMENDING THE LAWS OF THE COMMON- 
WEALTH RELATING TO TAXATION. 

OCTOBEE, 1897. 



Exempted Institutions. 

We have heard extended arguments in regard to the present pro- 
visions of law which exempt from taxation houses of religious wor- 
ship, and make large exemptions for literary, benevolent, charitable 
and scientific institutions. It has been represented that the exemp- 
tion of houses of worship is inconsistent with the general principle of 
the separation of church and State, and does injury to the cause of 
religion. It has been suggested also that expensive houses of worship 
should be differently treated from those of more modest character. 
The exemptions extended to educational and charitable institutions 
are alleged to work hardship for some of the cities and towns in which 
the real estate of such institutions is situated, and some different 
modes of arranging the exemptions for such institutions have been 
brought to our attention. 

We recommend no changes in existing legislation on these sub- 
jects. The general exemption of houses of worship is a fit recog- 
nition by the State of the sanctity of religion. So far as handsome and 
expensive houses of worship are concerned, we believe that no more 
objectionable and ineffective endeavor to reach the incomes of the 
rich could be devised than that of singling out for taxation the great 
churches and cathedrals which have been erected by the voluntary 
contributions of rich and poor alike, and which give evidence of a 
devout spirit, and of a just pride in its manifestation through beau- 
tiful forms. As regards educational and charitable institutions, the 
general principle of exemption has not been seriously questioned 
before us, and the only doubt has been as to possible hardship in its 

65 



G() EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

operation in certain cities and towns. It is conceivable that cases 
of hardship might arise, but we have not been convinced that any 
have arisen in fact. At all events, no evils or inef|uities have appeared 
in such degree as to call for the intervention of the Legislature, or 
justify a departure from a long-settled principle. In some cases of 
apparent hardshij) we believe the real difficulty to lie in the general 
situation of a large part of the agricultural sections of the State, which 
we have described in another ])art of our report. The appropriate 
methods of improving tliat situation, and of lessening the burden of 
taxation in the agricultural towns, we have also considered else- 
where. * * * (pp. 75-76.) 

Respectfully submitted, 

JAMES R. DUNBAR. 
ALVAN BARRUS. 
T. JEFFERSON COOLIDGE. 
F. W. TAUSSIG. 



EXTRACT FROM THE MINORITY REPORT. 

Exempted Institutions. 

The Commonwealth, in order to encourage investment in vessels 
engaged in foreign trade, exempts the owners of such vessels from 
any tax save on the income from the enterprise, and then reimburses 
the towns where such ships are owned. While not favoring this 
exemption, I am of the opinion that the principle should apply to 
charitable and educational institutions. A college, university or 
other public building, with its ample grounds, may be an adornment 
to any city or town; but it is questionable whether the city where 
such institutions are located receives such revenue from the tax on 
the income and personal property of the professors and officers as 
would be received if the land was occupied for residence or manu- 
facture. * * * (p. 152.) 

Respectfully submitted, 

GEORGE EDWIN McNEILL. 



REMARKS OF PRESIDENT ELIOT OF HARVARD UNI- 
VERSITY BEFORE THE RECESS COMMITTEE 
ON TAXATION, OCTOBER 23, 1906, WITH AN 
APPENDIX CONTAINING SOME EXTRACTS 
FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. 



67 



REMARKS OF PRESIDENT ELIOT OF HARVARD UNI- 
VERSITY BEFORE THE RECESS COMMITTEE 
ON TAXATION, OCTOBER 23, 1906, WITH AN 
APPENDIX CONTAINING SOME EXTRACTS 
FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. 



Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: — 

There are two ways in this world to carry on the higher educational 
institutions; only two ways have ever been invented and successfully 
used. One way is by direct support of the Government. In various 
parts of the world all forms of government have used successfully that 
direct method of supporting the higher institutions of education. 
That can be done in this country — is done in this country. Most 
of the western states tax themselves heavily every year for the support 
of their universities and of their normal and technical schools. That 
is one method — the direct taxation method — always effective, and 
far the quickest for a new community. (See Appendix I.) The 
other method is the method which was used by the first settlers on 
this spot, the men who came over from England to Massachusetts 
Bay. You were informed this morning by rather a romancing his- 
torian that this method was invented in Massachusetts about the 
time of the adoption of the Constitution. Here is an error of more 
than a century. The charter given to Harvard College in 1650 
contains a complete exemption of Harvard College "from all civil im- 
positions," including exemption of its students and teachers from mili- 
tary service. Moreover, this policy of exemption is a part of the 
only other method — beside direct governmental support — of main- 
taining the institutions of higher education, namely, the endowment 
method. What is the essence of that method? It is nothing but 
offering an inducement to public-spirited, private persons to give 
their money, chattels, lands, or buildings for the public use called 
higher education. That is exactly what the settlers in Massachusetts 

69 



70 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

Bay offered. They offered the indueement to the public-spirited 
men and women who were ready to give their private money and 
property to the support of the higher education, that, if they did so, 
then such property should be forever exempted from assessment for 
other public uses. The Government of the Colony agreed that the 
moneys given by private persons for education should forever be 
exempted from assessment for other lower public uses, like highways, 
sewers, courts, and prisons. That is the entire meaning of the exemp- 
tion, — private money set aside for public use shall not be assessed 
thereafter for lower public uses or any other public uses. (See Ap- 
pendix II.) 

How successful this policy has been in ]Massachusetts ! The 
schools, the Nonnal Schools, Technical Schools, Colleges, and Pro- 
fessional Schools in Massachusetts, both for men and women, are 
unexcelled to this day in the United States. Harvard University is 
the largest, richest, and strongest imiversity in this country at this 
moment, in spite of the fact that there are a dozen state universities 
which have their hands in the public treasury, and have had their 
hands in the public treasury, many of them, for more than a genera- 
tion. Where did the Normal Schools begin? Right here in Massa- 
chusetts and in this State House, through a private benefaction. 
Massachusetts started them. Massachusetts has fed them. What 
state has as good a technical school as JMassachusetts in the Insti- 
tute of Technology? What built that? Private money, with the 
aid of the State, — exempted private money, because the State agreed 
that the money given for that great public use should not be charged 
for other lower public uses. 

This, then, is the original, logical, and very productive Massachu- 
setts policy with regard to the support of higher education. Now 
this doctrine and this practice have been accepted by every town in 
Massachusetts which has ever had occasion to consider the question, 
"Can we get a college or an academy, or a normal school into this 
town?" There never has been a town or city in jMassachusetts that 
did not welcome these institutions of higher education. I had occa- 
sion last spring to refer to the fact that when it was proposed to 
establish one more normal school in Massachusetts, the Legislature, 
without waiting for the advice of the Board of Education which had 
asked for but one, established four new normal schools. Why ? Be- 
cause there was such a competition for that one normal school that 



ARGUMENT OF PRESIDENT ELIOT — 1906 71 

the Legislature found it more convenient to establish four. This, then, 
is a solid fact which I hope will be appreciated by the Committee, 
that this policy for the establishment and support of higher education 
has always, to this day, been believed in and accepted by the towns 
and cities of Massachusetts. As to Cambridge, the seat of Harvard 
University, the town gave the first land which the College occupied, 
and many times over during the first one hundred and fifty years 
repeated a gift of land to Harvard University. 

Nevertheless, with the growing difficulties concerning taxation in 
general, difficulties which we all admit, difficulties which many of us 
hope this Committee is going to strviggle with successfully, there has 
undoubtedly arisen a question about the incidence of this so-called 
burden, the exemption from taxation. Nobody doubts that the 
exemption policy of Massachusetts has been a fruitful and wise 
policy; but questions have arisen in many minds as to whether it 
would not be better, for example, for Massachusetts to vote annually 
— say — $500,000 a year as direct grants to the institutions of higher 
education rather than to give them this indirect advantage of exemp- 
tion from local taxation. That might conceivably be a question, as 
Mr. McLeod said, of the incidence of taxation. Let me next dis- 
cuss this incidence of taxation which is suspected to be unjust. 

In the first place, I venture to ask your attention to the proposi- 
tion that there is no burden whatever on the towns and cities which 
contain institutions of higher education, — absolutely none; no bur- 
den at all, but, on the contrary, enrichment and elevation for all the 
towns and cities in Massachusetts which have the happiness of con- 
taining these institutions. 

I have heard to-day and on many days in past years the attention 
of Committees and Commissions on this subject called to the fact 
that in many of our towns and cities very large amounts of property 
are exempted for churches, colleges, technical schools, etc.; and 
these large sums are rolled off the tongue with great unction, and it 
sounds as if there were an argument somewhere behind the figures, 
namely, that these large exempted amounts involve some burden. 
For instance, there are $25,000,000 of property returned as exempted 
in the city of Cambridge. It sounds large. Then we are to consider 
that in thirty years more that sum will be $50,000,000 perhaps, and 
in one hundred years $100,000,000. It sounds as if the exemption 
of such large values were going to be a burden. Yet there is not, 



72 



EXEINIPTIOX FROM TAXATION 



and there will not be, one atom of burdcMi on the city of Cambridge. 
To illustrate — Harvard University owns in one of the wards of 
Cambridge, called Ward S, from 75 to 80 acres of ground, on which 
there is no taxation. But if Harvard University were not there, 
some one will say, there would be shoj)S and houses all over those 
80 acres, from which large taxes would be derived. In the first place, 
whether those 80 acres would have been profitably occupied with 
houses or shops is guess work. It is extremely doubtful if there 
would have been any more taxable houses or shops in Cambridge 
without the College than there are now with the College; for there 
is still much unoccupied land in the city, as in all Massachusetts 
cities and towns. But some things we do know. For example, we 
know that in Ward 8, where the College is, if you add to the exempted 
area of the College three times as much land all about this exempted 
area, and then take the average value of that total for taxation pur- 
poses, exempted area and all, one-fourth exempted and the other 
three-fourths taxed, you arrive at a higher average value of land 
than exists anywhere else in the City. Where is the burden? The 
city gets more taxes from that Ward 8 than from any other ecjual 
area in Cambridge, in spite of, or rather because of, the exemption. 
Is there any burden resulting from the exemption? On the contrary, 
the city of Cambridge has distinctly profited, so far as taxable values 
go, from the presence of Harvard University with its exempted area 
of 80 acres. 

Secondly, I ask your attention to the effect of the exempted prop- 
erties in different cities and towns of the Commonwealth on the rates 
of taxation in those towns. One would imagine, if the presence of 
exempted values were a burden, that the rate of taxation in towns 
and cities heavily burdened in that sense would be higher, distinctly 
higher, than in towns and cities that had no such exempted values, 
or had much smaller values exempted. If the exemption is a burden 
to the town or locality, surely large exemptions ought to result in 
higher tax-rates; because all towns and cities are struggling after 
comfortable conditions within their territory, and the tax-rate which 
they find themselves able to collect is ])resumably a rate which gives 
them the comfortable conditions they desire, — not everything they 
desire, of course, but a fairly comfortable mode of existence. Now, 
as a matter of fact, there is no relation whatever between the tax-rate 
of any city or town and the amount of property exempted therein for 



ARGUMENT OF PRESIDENT ELIOT — 1906 73 

churches, schools, colleges, technical schools, and charities. (See 
Appendix III.) I will compare together, in the first place, the city 
of Cambridge, which has a population of 97,000, and the city of 
Lowell, which has a population of 95,000. The assessable property 
in Cambridge in 1905 was $104,000,000. The assessable property 
in Lowell was $72,000,000, or nearly three-fourths of the assessable 
property in Cambridge. Let us look at that fact to begin with. It 
seems that Cambridge has more property per capita than I^owell; 
yet Lowell is full of great factories. That is in itself a favorable 
indication that Cambridge is on the whole pretty well off in regard to 
the amount of assessable property. This is not an isolated fact. In 
Amherst, Northampton, and Williamstown, three towns whose con- 
dition has been represented before the Committee as singularly un- 
fortunate, the percentage of their taxable property to the taxable 
property in the counties in which they are severally situated is higher 
than the percentage of their taxable individuals to the total of taxable 
individuals in their respective counties. (See App. IV and VI.) 
But how about the exempted property in those two cities ? In Cam- 
bridge there are exempted, according to the returns of the assessors, 
$25,000,000 and upwards. In Lowell there are only $3,000,000 ex- 
exmpted, less than an eighth part of the Cambridge exempted value. 
What a tremendous advantage Lowell must have, if the exemption is 
a burden. Is there any escape from that logic? If there is any 
connection at all between low exempted values and a low rate of tax- 
ation, what an advantage Lowell must have over Cambridge with 
exempted property of only about $3,000,000, when Cambridge has 
exempted property of about $25,000,000. What is the fact about the 
tax-rates? In Cambridge in 1905 it was $19, in Lowell $20; in 1906 
in Cambridge it was $18.60, in Lowell it was $19.60. How, then, is 
it possible to believe that the exemption brings a burden upon the com- 
munity where that exemption takes effect ? 

Let me compare two other places of about equal population, 
Amherst and Easthampton. Easthampton has rather more people. 
It has slightly more assessable property, almost $200,000 more; but 
Easthampton has only $584,000 exempted property, whereas unfortu- 
nate Amherst has nearly $3,000,000 exempted. This must be a 
tremendous burden on Amherst according to the theory we have 
heard here to-day. But what are the tax-rates ? In Amherst it was 
$16.25 in 1905, and the same rate in 1906; in Easthampton it was 



/4 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

$17 each year, or higher than in Amherst. Does anybody suppose 
that Amherst does not live as well as Easthampton? Those who 
visit the two towns know better than that. 

Now let us compare Williamstown with Provincetown, two towns 
a])])roximately equal in population. Williamstown has about $3,000,- 
000 of assessable property, and Provincetown nearly $2,000,000; 
but the unfortunate Williamstown has over $2,000,000 of exempted 
property, whereas the fortunate Provincetown has only $50,000 of 
exempted property. Some one said it was best to compare such fig- 
ures in percentages. The exempted property in Williamstown is 
70 % of the assessable property, whereas in Provincetown the exempted 
property is only 2i % of the assessable property. What a great dis- 
advantage Williamstown must be under! Yet the tax-rate in Wil- 
liamstown in 1905 was $18.80, and in Provincetown $20; and in 
1906 in Williamstown it was $18.70, and in Provincetown $19.50. 
Again the lower rates in the town where a college is situated, and 
which has exempted property amounting to 70% of its assessable 
property. It is a significant fact, considering the lamentable picture 
painted here of the condition of Amherst and Northampton, that 
both towns had tax-rates in 1904 lower than the average tax-rate in 
Hampshire County. 

I will put this matter in one other form. Cambridge is said to 
have $25,000,000 of exempted property. Now suppose some bene- 
factor or benefactors should give Harvard University to-morrow 
$20,000,000. Much of that sum would ultimately get into Cam- 
bridge as exempted property in buildings, collections, and apparatus; 
but the assessable property in Cambridge would not be diminished, 
but on the contrary much increased, because the University would 
be made richer and better and would have more teachers, students 
and workmen whose expenditures would increase the business done 
in the city and therefore its tax receipts. We are now looking for 
the great Gordon McKay bequest of $5,000,000, and we know some 
of that must go into such "plant." Now will the "burden" on Cam- 
bridge be increased when that Gordon McKay bequest comes in? 
Its assessable property will not be diminished. In what possible 
way will the "burden" of Cambridge be increased? In no way. 
On the contrary, there will be a larger, better equipped, more resorted 
to, educational establishment in Cambridge, and the city will receive 
an increase of the many benefits which it now derives from the Uni- 
versity. (See Appendix V.) 



ARGUMENT OF PRESIDENT ELIOT 1906 75 

I was anxious to make as clear as I could this proposition that 
the towns and cities in which there are large exemptions for churches, 
hospitals, colleges, etc., have absolutely no burden to bear, — none. 
That is the logic of the situation; moreover, it is the result of expe- 
rience, the experience of Massachusetts since 1630. 

I now want to touch upon some matters of detail which were re- 
ferred to this morning by the advocates of this little bill. I am sure 
the Committee perceive clearly that this is a limited attack, on a 
small scale, on a principle and method of eminent significance and 
value; it is a petty attack on a principle which has made Massa- 
chusetts what it is. It is an attack on only three sorts of college 
property, — professors' houses, dormitories, and dining-halls. I have 
heard nothing said lately about taxing dining-halls ; probably because 
a good many difficulties have occurred to the advocates of this meas- 
ure in regard to taxing college, academy, and seminary dining-halls. 
The question was asked repeatedly this morning: 'Why not tax a 
professor's house or president's house if you tax a parsonage or priest's 
house? You do tax a parsonage or priest's house; why not tax, 
therefore, the president's house or the professor's house?" That is 
a fair question; but the answer is very plain. The parsonage or 
priest's house is not necessary to the church. A church can always 
get along very well without owning a parsonage. Indeed, it is a 
small minority of churches that own parsonages. On the other 
hand, it has been proved by experience, in many places and at many 
epochs, that it is necessary to the success of a college, academy, or 
seminary that there should be a house for the president or principal, 
and in some cases houses for the professors. For example, Tufts 
' College, concerning which we had such a witty and wise piece of 
testimony this morning, could not have been established by any 
possibility on that bare, bleak, treeless hill, without building at the 
start a president's house and professors' houses. It was equally 
necessary to build a dormitory and a dining-room. The new insti- 
tution could not be started without these provisions. That is one 
solid reason for exempting the president's or principal's house and 
professors' houses, when parsonages are not exempted. In some 
places this issue is a very small one to-day; in others it is vital. You 
need not hesitate, gentlemen, out of consideration for Harvard Col- 
lege, to force the Corporation to dispose of the five or six professor's 
houses they still own. They are burdensome pieces of property, 



70 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

and are no longer needed tor ])rofessors. They are desirable, how- 
ever, for a few deans or other administrative offieers. A house for 
the President still seems a necessity at Harvard, as at other similar 
institutions. I may add that, seeing this necessity, the poor Prov- 
ince of jNlassachusetts, in 1726, paid more than half the cost of build- 
ing a handsome president's house at Cambridge. Are we going back 
on that, gentlemen? Is there a man here who would be willing to 
go back in these prosperous days on that act of the Province of Massa- 
chusetts in the time of its poverty? 

There is another reason that parsonages and priests' houses are 
taxed, while presidents' and professors' houses are not. We, of 
course, ought to talk as plainly as possible here. The reason is that 
there is not so much consent or agreement on the expediency of 
maintaining the ministers of the different Protestant denominations, 
the ])riests of the Roman Church or the Greek Church, and the rabbis 
of the Jews as there is on the expediency of maintaining the colleges 
in all their functions. Most citizens think their own church is clearly 
an institution of public utility; but many are doubtful whether as 
much can be said for some other church or churches. This lack of 
consent on the public utility of all churches is the second explanation 
of the fact that parsonages are taxed in IMassachusetts. 

There was reference this morning to the athletic field of Smith 
College, and then some disparaging allusions were made to the ath- 
letic fields of Harvard and to their history and uses. Harvard's 
principal playground now lies in Boston, on the right bank of Charles 
River. It was the gift of an eminent citizen of this Commonwealth, 
who bought it with his private money, and gave it to the University. 
He bought an area contiguous to a large marsh which lay across the 
river opposite the residence of Longfellow, on Brattle Street, Cam- 
bridge. Longfellow loved the prospect from his windows, and 
wanted to have the marshes kept open forever for public enjoyment. 
So he and some friends of his bought those marshes and gave them 
to the University. Such were the honorable source of the great 
playground called the Soldier's Field. Why did Major Higginson 
make that costly gift to the College? For one thing, he believed in 
the doctrine that the Duke of Wellington preached, when he said 
that Waterloo was won on the pla}grounds of Eton College. To 
emphasize his belief in that proposition INIr. Higginson put up on 
Soldier's Field a monument to some dear friends of his, all of whom 



ARGUMENT OF PRESIDENT ELIOT — 1906 77 

gave their lives to the country in the Civil War. Is there anybody in 
Massachusetts who would consent to the taxation of that Field? Is 
there anybody who does not believe that such fields are essential to. 
the proper training of our educated young men for public service and 
private usefulness? But I have heard it said by the advocates of 
this little bill that $80,000 was taken on that Field in a single day from 
people who paid $2 apiece to witness a game of foot-ball. True, per- 
fectly true; but where did that money go to, that $80,000? Did any 
of it go into a privarte pocket? No. Was any of it used except for 
the promotion of athletic sports at the competing colleges and the 
development of that Field ? Not a dollar. The whole of that sudden 
receipt was consecrated to this public use of education,— of bodily 
education, if you please, an essential part of that education. It is 
moral education, too; for courage, public spirit, fidelity, and self- 
sacrifice are taught there. ■ In short, we teach on that Field, through 
the acts of the Poet Longfellow and Major Higginson, what pubhc 
spirit accomplishes. The Field itself is a striking illustration of 
Massachusetts pubUc spirit, consecrating private property to noble 
public uses. 

We had some playgrounds before the Soldier's Field. The first 
one I knew, now nearly sixty years ago, was a little triangle of ground 
which lies north of the College, between Cambridge Street and Kirk- 
land Street, a small piece of ground, about two acres in area. That 
had sufficed the College for many, many years; but one day a com- 
mittee of the subscribers to Memorial Hall wanted to put up that 
memorial to the services of Harvard graduates and students in the 
Civil W^ar on that enclosure. Thereupon friends of the College 
raised money, and bought another field, farther to the north, a larger 
one, called Jarvis Field; in order that Memorial Hall might be built 
on the first playground of the College. It was suggested this morn- 
ing that the athletic fields of to-day might, a hundred years hence 
or fifty years hence, be used for other purposes. On that account 
it was doubted whether they ought to be exempted from taxation. 
Taking the delta to the north of the present site of Harvard College 
as a sample of the former athletic fields of the University, and admit- 
ting that the University has grown great from small and poor begin- 
nings, can one conceive of a better use of an old athletic field than 
to put Memorial Hall on it? Can any one of us conceive of taxing 
Memorial Hall or the enclosure in which it stands? Is that a con- 



78 EXEMPTIOxX FROM TAXATION 

ceivable proposition in Massachusetts? It is a (lining-hall in which 
young men eat at cost. They divide the total costs among them- 
selves. There is absolutely no profit for anybody; there is no profit 
which can be applied to other public uses of the College. A poor 
boy can eat there for $2.80 a week, and a somewhat richer boy can 
spend $4 if he likes, and the careless boy can spend more. They 
are all free to spend what they wish or can afford. Where else can 
a vigorous young man feed himself sufficiently on $2.80 a week? I 
do not know any club, restaurant, or boardingnliouse where a man 
can live as cheaply as he can at Memorial Hall or Randall Hall. Is 
that a help to that newsboy who got a scholarship in Harvard College 
the other day, or not ? He simply could not afford to go to Harvard 
College even with a scholarship without such help in procuring his 
food. 

We heard a good deal this morning about institutions of learning 
that make a profit. We even heard once about making so much 
profit per student. I think Smith College was supposed to make a 
profit per girl, because the girls paid $8 or $9 per week for board and 
lodging. In such transactions there is no profit in the mercantile 
sense. If it does not cost quite $8 or $9 per week to lodge and feed 
the girls in Smith College, if some College house in the course of a 
year clears a little surplus of receipts over expenditures, every dollar 
of that surplus goes to a public use, goes into the work of Smith Col- 
lege. I hope that this misleading use of the word profit in connection 
with college receipts and expenditures will be observed by the Com- 
mittee. 

We even heard that the property of colleges in dormitories, dining- 
halls, and athletic fields was used for business purposes, the impli- 
cation being that all business should be taxed. I want to illustrate 
the fallacy under that representation. Opposite the College Yard in 
Cambridge, across the street called Massachusetts Avenue, are two 
large contiguous brick buildings. They are both used mainly for 
the accommodation of students; but on the first story there are stores 
or shops and offices. Above are students' rooms. The entire net 
income of one of those buildings goes to a private person, the son 
of a gentleman who long lived in Cambridge and built up an honor- 
able and successful business in Boston. The net income from the 
other building, — and you would not notice much difference between 
the two in position, quality, or use, — goes to Harvard University. 



ARGUMENT OF PRESIDENT ELIOT 1906 79 

Now that second building is exempt from taxation, and the first is 
not exempt. Why? Because all the receipts from the second build- 
ing go to a public use, the promotion of higher education, while the 
receipts from the first building go straight to a private use. That is 
the fundamental difference between what was here called money- 
making or a business carried on by a college, and money-making or 
a business in the same line carried on by a private person. In one 
case the net income goes to a public use, in the other to a private 
use. Exemption is given only when the whole net proceeds are 
applied to a public use. This is never true of an industrial or com- 
mercial establishment or of a transportation company. Such estab- 
lishments are usually of advantage to the communities in which they 
are situated; but their net profits go to private uses. 

Allusion was made in the remarks of the last speaker to the pro- 
priety of taxing students on their lodgings or their meals, because 
it would be a good lesson for students to pay taxes, and to know that 
they paid taxes, so that they should not grow up tax dodgers. Now, 
gentlemen, that rash suggestion carries us down to the very roots of 
the enormous subject which has been committed to you for study. 
What are the legitimate objects of taxation ? Only productive things 
and persons and their products. The things which earn should be 
taxed for the support of public objects, unless the earnings are already 
devoted to a public object. Now these students in girls' colleges, 
boys' colleges, and technical schools are not earning anything. On 
the contrary, their time has been given up by their parents that they 
may study and so improve their power to earn. They are not yet 
legitimate objects for taxation of any sort. 

I want to touch finally one general principle with regard to exemp- 
tions. We have learned, — I think the greater part of the population 
of Massachusetts has learned wdthin the last ten years, — that reser- 
vations from taxation are not bad, burdensome, wasteful things, but 
on the contrary that they are highly profitable and precious things; 
and that the question really is not how few reservations a community 
can get along with, but how many they can indulge in. The long 
and short of it is, gentlemen, that the things which make it worth 
while to live in Massachusetts, to live anywhere in the civilized world, 
are precisely the things which are not taxed; the things exempted 
are the things which are in the highest degree profitable to the com- 
munity. Just consider what our life would be without the exempted 



80 EXEMPTION FRO.M TAXATION 

institutions of Massachusetts, the colleges, museums, churches, 
schools, hospitals, courts, libraries, gardens, commons, paries, all the 
parks, — Boston's, Cambridge's, and the Metropolitan, and the parks 
of the Trustees of Public Reservations. Just think what our life 
would be if all these things were swept away. What would become 
of family life, of social life, of public enjoyment and private happi- 
ness? We get through these exempted institutions the joys and 
satisfactions and the upward tendencies which make life worth liv- 
ing. Let nobody persuade you for a moment that these invaluable 
reservations from taxation are a burden on the public; they are what 
make the common life worth livins;. 



APPENDIX I 

In the following states, appropriations, either State or City, were made 
during the year 1903-04 for the maintenance of institutions for higher educa- 
tion, including both current expenses and appropriations for buildings or 
other special pitrposes: — 

California $567,746 

Colorado 140,000 

Georgia 136,900 

Illinois 630,200 

Indiana 180,000 

Iowa 285,500 

Kansas 220,000 

Michigan 448,525 

Missouri 330,547 

Nebraska 282,250 

New York 308,203 

Ohio 575,781 

Pennsylvania 344,540 

Texas 165,000 

Wisconsin 471,500 

These figures are taken from the report of the Commissioner of Education 
for 1904 and do not include appropriations for schools of technology. 



ARGUMENT OF PRESIDENT ELIOT — 1906 81 



APPENDIX II 

EXTRACT FROM A LETTER WRITTEN BY PRESIDENT ELIOT 
DECEMBER 12th, 1874, TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE 
COMMONWEALTH APPOINTED "TO INQUIRE INTO THE 
EXPEDIENCY OF REVISING AND AMENDING THE LAWS 
OF THE STATE RELATING TO TAXATION AND THE EXEMP- 
TIONS THEREFROM."* {House Doc. No. 15, 1875, p. 369.) 

The property which has been set apart for religious, educational and chari- 
table uses is not to be thought of or dealt with as if it were private property; 
for it is completely unavailable for all the ordinary purposes of property, so 
long as the trusts endure. It is like property of a city or state which is essen- 
tial for carrying on the work of the city or state, and so cannot be reckoned 
among the public assets; it is irrecoverable and completely unproductive. 
The capital is sunk, so to speak, just as the cost of a sewer or a highway is 
capital sunk. There is a return, both from a church or a college, and from a 
sewer or a highway, in the benefit secured to the community; but the money 
which built themis no longer to be counted as property, in the common sense. 
It can never again be productive, except for the purposes of the trust for 
which it was set apart. 

When a new road is made where there was none, the State, or some individ- 
ual, sacrifices the value of the land it covers, and the money spent in building 
the road. It also sacrifices the opportunity to tax, in the future, the improve- 
ments which might have been put upon that land if it had not been converted 
into a road, and all the indirect taxable benefits which might have been derived 
from the use for productive purposes of the land, and of the money which the 
road cost. When a church, or a coUege, or a hospital, buys land, and erects 
buildings thereon, the State does not sacrifice the value of the land, or the 
money spent upon the buildings; private persons make these sacrifices; but 
the State does sacrifice, by the exemption statute, the opportunity to tax, in 
the future, the improvements which might have been put upon that land if it 
had not been converted to religious, educational or charitable uses, and all the 
indirect taxable benefits which might have been derived from the use for pro- 
ductive purposes of the land, and of the money which the buildings cost. 

This is the precise burden of the exemption upon the State. Why does the 
State assume it? For a reason similar to, though much stronger than, its 
reason for building a new road, and losing that area forever for taxation. The 
State believes that the new road will be such a convenience to the community, 
that the indirect gain from making it will be greater than the direct and indirect 
loss In the same way the State believes, or at least believed when the exemp- 
tion statute was adopted, that the indirect gain to its treasury which results 
from the establishment of the exempted institutions is greater than the loss 
which the exemption involves. If this belief is correct in the main, though 
not perhaps universally and always, the exemption can hardly be properly 
described as a burden to the State at large. 

* See above, pp. 21-4.5. 



82 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

Tlie parallel between a sewer or a highway, on the one hand, and land and 
buiUlings of exempted institutions, on the other, may be carried a little farther 
with advantage. The abutters often pay a part of the cost of the sewer or 
the highway which passes their doors, because it is of more use to them than 
to the rest of the inhabitants, and the members of the religous, educational 
or charitable society erect their necessary buildings and pay for their land 
themselves. If it be granted that the religious, educational or charitable use 
is a public use, like the use of a sewer or a highway, there is no more reason 
for taxing the church, the academy or the hospital, than for annually taxing 
the abutters on a sewer or a highway on the cost of that sewer or on the cost 
of the highway and its value considered as so many feet of land, worth, like 
the adjoining lots, so many dollars a foot. The community is repaid for the 
loss of the taxable capital sunk in the sewer by the benefit to the public health, 
and the resulting enhancement of the value of all its territory. In like manner, 
it is repaid for the loss of the capital set apart for religious, educational and 
charitable uses, by the increase of morality, spirituality, intelligence and 
virtue, and the general well-being which results therefrom. To tax lands, 
buildings, or funds which have been devoted to religious or educational 
purposes, would be to divert money from the highest public use, — the pro- 
motion of learning and virtue, — to some lower public use, like the mainte- 
nance of roads, prisons or courts, an operation which cannot be expedient 
until too large an amount of property has been devoted to the superior use. 
This is certainly not the case in Massachusetts to-day. The simple reasons 
for the exemption of churches, colleges and hospitals from taxation are these: 
first, that the State needs those institutions; and secondly, that experience 
has shown that by far the cheapest and best way in which the State can get 
them is to encourage benevolent and public-spirited people to provide them 
by promising not to divert to inferior public uses any part of the income of 
the money which these benefactors devote to this noblest public use. The 
statute which provides for the exemption is that promise. 



ARGUMENT OF PRESIDENT ELIOT 



1906 



83 



APPENDIX III 



COLLEGE TOWNS HAVE NO HIGHER TAX-RATES THAN 
NON-COLLEGE TOWNS 



Cambridge 

Fall River 

Worcester 

Lowell 

Lawrence 

Springfield 

Lynn 

New Bedford 

Amherst . . 
Ware . . . 
Easthampton 
South Hadley 

Northampton 
North Adams 
Pittsfield 
Medford . . 



Andover 
North Andover 
Methuen 
Amesbury 
Saugus . . 
Dan vers . . 
Rockport 

Williamstown 
Lee . . . 
Dalton . . 
Provincetown 
Monson . . 
Belmont . . 
Lexington 
Needham 
Warren . . 



1906 1905 

Population! Assessable Prop. 2 



97,434 
105,762 
128,135 
94,889 
70,050 
73,540 
77,042 
74,362 

5,313 
8,594 
6,808 
5,054 

19,957 
22,150 
25,001 
19,686 

6,632 
4,614 
8,676 
8,840 
6,253 
9,063 
4,447 

4.425 
3,972 
3,122 
4,362 
4,344 
4,360 
4,530 
4,284 
4,300 



$103,845,600 
81,754,247 
120,865,502 
71,632,643 
46,235,468 
80,904,477 
56,157,073 
64,349,661 

3,599,900 
4,398,210 
3,781,772 
2,529,372 

12,739,859 
14,862,527 
18,330,223 
21,240,150 



1905 & 1906 
Tax Rat 62 

$19.00 $18.60 
18.80 18.40 



4,4G2,.302 
5,178,157 
5,346,227 
4,555,686 
5,341,280 



3,035,747 
1,918,865 
3,017,700 
1,928,920 
1,698,168 
5,602,650 
5,957,670 
4,503,731 
1,762,743 



17.00 
20.20 
16.80 
15.40 
18.40 
19.40 

16.25 
19.70 
17.00 
21.00 

17.00 
22.00 
18.50 
21.40 



16.60 
19.60 
16.00 
15.00 
17.00 
18.40 

16.25 
18.00 
17.00 
16.50 

16.50 
20.00 
18.50 
20.20 



1905 

January 1 

Exempted Prop. 

$25,377,063 
2,764,000 
5,922,900 
3,119,751 
1,529,625 
3,619,193 
1,515,100 
2,436,860 



17.50 
19.30 
17.70 
18.70 
18.00 



18.00 
19.00 
18.80 
19.80 
19.20 



3,051,252 21.00 18.00 



18.80 
18.32 
14.70 
20.00 
16.20 
19.90 
20.40 
18.00 
21.50 



18.70 
18.05 
15.70 
19.50 
17.00 
18.00 
19.00 
18.50 
19.60 



2,909,099 

214,074 

583,735 

1,553,850 

4,416,607 

847,000 

1,446,754 

1,119,700 



5,902,668 16.00 17.50 1,873,061 



64,200 
118,050 
382,692 

77,358 
234,608 

67,000 

2,120,203 

59,725 

93,650 

50,000 

245,613 

1,664,629 

131,950 

76,455 

105,300 



1 Massachusetts census of 1905. 

2 Massachusetts Public Document No. 19 of 1905; official returns on file with the 
Secretary of the Commonwealth. 

3 Report of Massachusetts Tax Commissioner, for the year ending December 31, 1904. 



84 



EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 



X 

Q 



o 

E^ g >^ 

O Q H 

H > ^ 

ffi Q O 

H^ ^ 

H ^ ^ 

m < o 

O -J I— I 

tf S Q 

Ph w '-' 

S ^ 
WWW 

m ^ ^ 
S f^ '^ 

^ ^ Q 

W ^ o 
K W S 

^ W 5 
H '^ -< 
S '^ fx, 

Ah P5 g 

ffi w s 

M W !^ 

|-« 

W g 
o g 

So 

o 
o 



51a tc 
d X S 5 
a3=« 9-rR 






^ 



00 



0) 0) to "" !^ 

tir:: 3 Wi^ 



es c O a; . 



CI 



£ o ^ 



HS. 






^ 



^ 



o 



m w m 



65 

I-H 

00 



^ 



^ ^ 



^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 



T-H -H ICl 



g 


8 


00 


Oi 



= K 



H 



ARGUMENT OF PRESIDENT ELIOT — 1906 



85 





^ 






O 






m 






H 






!2; 






W 






§ 






H 






tf 






< 






PL, 






H 






P 






H 






O t- 






Q Y 






1— ( CO 






P^ S 






Sii 






3^ 






o ^ 


Q 






H 
Q 

J 




^ t~ 


^ 




fo CO 




> 


Oc^ 


H 


X 

1— 1 


gl 


O 






O 
H 

O 
n 


l-U| 


M 57^ 




<l 


P^ ^ 






n W 






^i^ 






w ;2; 


O 




p P 


K 




1^ ^ 






^ Q 






O p- 






w ^ 






(J > 






H4p^ 






Q ^ 





< 

O 

P 
< 



ffi 







l> 


















1 






o 




(N 




CO C5 c- 


5 02 






CD 

o 




lO 




rH CO C 


C5 








-* 




Th cs: 


5 iC 




m 


02 




(M 








CO 




"cS 




















O 


CO 




















1 




O 




00 lo o 


O 






CO 




00 






I— 1 ir 


5 CO 






CO 




■* 






,— 


CO 






00- 




















^ 




















t^ 


















c 


o 
1 - 




lO 




UO lO c 


J ^ 




T„^ 


CO 




(N- 




00 cc 


) 00 




aptuD 


o 




CO 








rt< 




_Ct3 


o> 


















"So'E 




















-0X2 






















t> 


















CO 

1 

CO 
CO 
00 




CO 
.t— 1 






■ <N a 


5 -P 
CO 






rH 


















CO 


r^ 


















a> 


o 




t^ 




c- 


CO oc 


CO 




p 


1 
CD 

o 




CO 




ai 1-1 c- 


GO 




o 




lO 




1—1 c<- 


O 




■^S- 


05 














'—1 




5 cS 


i-H 


















I> 


















> +j 


CO 


















*n^^ 


1 




lO 




cc 


^ c- 


I— 1 




a 


CD 




'Cf 








Ol 


00 




c 


CO 

00 














(M 




^ 


"^ 




















t- 


















p^ 


o 




CO 




o- 


(M (M 


CO 




■^ 


1 
CD 
O 

03 




00 




(M 


CC 


t- 








00 








O 
I— 1 






















> CS 


t^ 




















CD 


















^^ ' — 




















CLi 


CD 




CO 






. T— 


lO 




^ 


CD 
00 




















l> 




















O 


















=3 


1 




t^ 






C 


CO CO 


CO 




cS^ 


CD 




c 








.-H o: 


lO 






O 




l> 










Oi 




a) 5 




















1=1 








































t> 


















■^ i^ 


CO 


















O 3 


1 




o- 








(M GC 


o 




Q ^^ 


CO 




c 








1— 1 


CO 




C 


CD 
00 




cc 










CO 










OJ 




CO 


T3 














o 




OJ 


O 


















i 




o 






















C 
.2 


3, 


















03 




'53 




















vJ 




Ti 


«*-! 
















CO 






oj 


o 
















-fj 




CO 


"o 
o 
















a 






















a; 


-0 




<< 


Si 
o 
















u 


o3 


CO 


O 


M 
















03 


"c 


£5 




















0, 


<B c 


1 


'o 

O 


03 
3 


O 












q; 


03 


w 


TS 


^ 


P-H 










-0 '-^ 


^3 


CO 
0) 


03 


=81 


o 








03 


?= ^ 


CD 


03 




-^ ^5: 










s- 


03 a 


-is 

2 


o 


T3 .a 
03 a 


P h: 










P 




u 












1 



o ^ 



O 



T3 



c S 5-i^ 


CO CO 




^ >^ 






"2 a3 S-=? 


CJ (33 


1=1 oj S •- 


O cd 




o3 bjO o3 CO 





O cs <U t3 .'"-fl 

QJ ^ P "^ C C O 
li^ S -1-^ CO OJ O »2 

_ W Sh CO .zl -*-^ *-• 
fl "S O p CO c3 OJ 

-- S? - o £ o ^0 

b£<U^ 

03 o '^'^ 

fl go <^ 

c3 • ■ 



"3 S bfl^ 



i3 '^ O.^ 



a a- 

i^6 



b£p 



O Q 



^11 



■-73 >- 
O 2 03 o 



CO (Xt 

2 g ^ 

CD 2 OJ T^ 

^ O 03 g-O S § 

Qj o3 03 o '^'^ ,is< 
OH?n.S ^ ° to O^ 

^^o-^coc^^l 



03 i_ -u ^-1 



=2 a' 



c.^ 



"S-S to O Oj^ CD ?^'S ^ 

■^ OJ "^ ^ J,^ 

g ^-0 >j «3 g ^^ cu .-s o 

^ Soi a-g flci so-^^ 

0)0)02 bC ij "^ S S te o3 
-So3'OCloa>OO.gP^^ 

"^ ^ 0) ^ 



03^ 



co.S'S'o' 



86 



EXEMPTION 1 ROW TAXATION 



APPENDIX VI 

EXEMPTION DOES NOT DIMINISH THE VALUE OF TAXABLE 

REALTY IN COLLEGE TOWNS AS COMPARED 

WITH OTHER TOWNS 

The Figures are for 1905 



Town 



Population 



Value of Tax- 
able Real 
Estate 



Per Capita 
Value of Tax- Tax 
able Real Rate 

Estate 



Cambridge 97,434 

Fall River 105,762 

Worcester 128,135 

Lowell 94,889 

Lawrence 70,050 

Springfield 73,540 

Lynn 77,042 

New Bedford 74,362 

Somerville 69,272 

Amherst 5,313 

Ware 8,594 

Easthampton 6,808 

South Hadley 5,054 

Northampton 19,957 

North Adams 22,150 

Pittsfield 25,001 

Medford 19,686 

Cambridge 97,434 

Somerville 69,272 

Maiden 38,037 

Everett 29,111 

Chelsea 37,289 

Medford 19,686 

Revere 12,659 

Williamstown 4,425 

Adams 12,486 

North Adams 22,150 

Dalton 3,122 

Great Barrington .... 6,152 

Lee . 3,972 



$87,851,500 $901.60 



50,219,900 
95,669,850 
57,208,845 
36,224,000 
63,273,330 
46,130,000 
40,293,975 
53,392,000 

2,726,060 
3,338,805 
2,834,380 
2,144,710 

10,231,750 
12,065 012 
13,813,825 
18,393.550 

87,851,500 
53,392,000 
25,128,200 
19,951,150 
22,497,950 
18,393,550 
11,888,600 

2,680,575 
3,557,875 
12,065,012 
1,621,.581 
3,767,890 
1,424,438 



474.80 
745.80 
602.90 
517.10 
860.30 
598.70 
541.80 
770.70 

513.00 
388.50 
416..30 
424.30 

512.70 
544,60 
552.50 
934.30 

901.60 
770.70 
660.60 
685.30 
603.30 
934..30 
939.10 

605.80 
285.00 
544.60 
519.40 
612.40 
358.60 



$19.00 
18.80 
17.00 
20.20 
16.80 
15.40 
18.40 
19.40 
18.30 

16.25 
19.70 
17.00 
21.00 

17.00 
22.03 
18.50 
21.40 

19.00 
18.30 
17.20 
17.80 
19.00 
21.40 
22.00 

18.80 
18.00 
22.00 
14.70 
13..50 
18.32 



EXTRACT FROM THE 
REPORT OF THE JOINT SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON 
TAXATION APPOINTED TO CONSIDER THE EX- 
PEDIENCY OF LEGISLATION IN AMENDMENT 
OF OR IN ADDITION TO THE GENERAL 
LAWS RELATING TO TAXATION. 

January, 1907. 



Taxation of Property of Educational Institutions. 

Senate Bill, No. 382, which was referred to this committee, pro- 
vides for certain amendments to the present law exempting from 
taxation the property owned by educational institutions. The specific 
reference of this bill, together with the power granted to the committee 
to recommend amendments of or additions to laws relating to the 
assessment and collection of taxes, enables the committee to consider 
the college taxation cjuestion in its entirety. 

The agitation of this question is not new in Massachusetts. There 
have been previous attempts to induce the General Court to change 
the existing law. These different attempts have been varied in their 
scope, but similar in that each has sought to bring into the treasury 
of the communities in which the institutions are situated a revenue 
from real estate now exempt from taxation. The bill referred to this 
committee provides that "real property, owned and occupied by any 
college or imiversity, or by any scientific institution authorized to 
grant degrees, which is used or appropriated, wholly or in part, for 
residential, commercial or mercantile purposes or for dormitories, 
shall not be exempt from taxation." The terms of this bill are simple, 
and do not attempt to bring into the taxable lists property used as 
recitation or assembly halls, laboratories or gymnasia. But this 
bill, restricted as it is, would make a great change in the policy which 
Massachusetts has maintained since colonial times towards her edu- 
cational institutions, 

87 



88 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

The advocates of a change in this long-established policy are not 
as a rule unfriendly to our system of higher education. Their belief 
is, however, that under present conditions there is imposed upon 
certain communities a heavy burden by the exemption from taxation 
of large amounts of property owned by these institutions. They see 
many acres of land acquired by the colleges, and thus removed from 
the taxable lists. Upon this land they see costly buildings erected, 
or athletic fields laid out whereon are held games which bring in large 
amounts of money. It is evident to them, as to any one, that were 
all or any part of the property now owned by the colleges to be subject 
to taxation there would be an inmiediate decrease of the taxes upon 
the other property in the community. It seems to your committee, 
however, that this question should be considered somewhat more 
broadly than with reference to its possible effect upon particular 
communities. 

Our forefathers- evidently believed that colleges and universities 
served a public purpose. Their descendants have continued in that 
belief. Upon no other ground could our laws providing for the 
exemption of their property from taxation have been upheld by our 
courts. Exemption from taxation, then, has been the method by 
which Massachusetts has aided her educational institutions. There 
is another method which has been tried successfully in other parts of 
the United States; that is, the method of making appropriations for 
colleges from the State treasury. INIany of the States contribute 
annually for this purpose hundreds of thousands of dollars. Massa- 
chusetts appropriates nothing, and yet the amount of the aid she 
extends to her colleges is large. We do not believe the peoi)le of 
Massachusetts desire to give to the colleges less aid than they are now 
giving. Any change in our laws by which the colleges would be 
required to pay taxes upon any part of their property would serve 
to decrease the amount of the aid they are now receiving and would 
be a tax upon education. 

To increase its expenses by the imposition of taxes would make it 
necessary for the college to increase its income or to decrease its 
expenses. It could raise the tuition charged to the students, or it 
could lower the character and the cost of the instruction it offered 
and decrease the lines of its activity. Neither one of these alternatives 
is desirable. The character of the instruction existing in the colleges 



REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE — 1907 89 

of Massachusetts lias helped to make them among the foremost, if 
not the leaders, of the educational institutions of the country. They 
hold a position in the educational world of which we are all proud, 
and which we desire them to maintain. None of their activities should 
be curtailed. Their athletic games, under proper restrictions, should 
be encouraged. Students should take more rather than less part in 
healthful forms of physical exercise. The dormitory system should 
be continued. Some oversight of the students upon the part of the 
college authorities is necessary. Parents are unwilling to send their 
daughters into strange communities, to room where they may, free 
from restrictions, with no one responsible for their discreet conduct. 
In the colleges for women especially, and to a large extent in all col- 
leges,^ dormitories are essential to the students and to the maintenance 
of the institutions. The college dining halls give board at prices lower 
than are charged elsewhere, and enable students to attend college 
who would otherwise be unable to meet their expenses. Every func- 
tion now performed by the colleges is justified, and should not be 
interfered with. It is our boast that the poorest boy or girl, possessing 
no more than average ability, can secure a college education in Massa- 
chusetts. The number of poor students attending our colleges is large. 
To increase even to a small extent their expenses would be to take 
from many of them the opportunity and even the hope of a college 
training. The taxation of college property in Massachusetts must 
inevitably tend to drive from the colleges of this Commonwealth 
many worthy students, and make the colleges schools exclusively for 
the well-to-do or the rich. 

The liberal policy that Massachusetts has maintained toward her 
educational institutions has been a large factor in bringing to them 
numerous gifts and endowments. We are forced to believe that men 
and women will be reluctant to devote their fortunes to educational 
purposes if they know that some part of their property is to be used 
for the construction of roads, the maintenance of the public schools, 
or for any other of the proper activities of our municipalities. It 
seems to us eminently wise that Massachusetts shall continue to say 
to every one, "Give to our colleges of your fortune; all of its income 
shall be forever devoted to the purposes to which you have dedicated 
it." 

Though many of the colleges of Massachusetts have large endow- 



90 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

ments and own property of great value, not one of them is beyond 
the need of still greater possessions. We know of no college in Massa- 
chusetts which receives an income sufficient for its expenses. There 
may be an apparent "profit" from dormitories or athletic fields or 
dining halls, but there is no "profit" from any student; the per capita 
cost of instruction is twice and often three times the amount collected 
as tuition from the student. The use of the word "profit" in this 
connection is inexact. The manufacturer who finds that the sui-]:)lus 
created by one department of his business must be used in operating 
another department, and that the expenses of all the departments 
are greater than the income they bring to him, lacks courage to use 
the word "profit." Whatever surplus may appear from the income 
of the dormitories or of the athletic fields is applied to educational 
uses by the college. In no case do we find that, as a result of all the 
educational activities of any college in the Commonwealth, is there a 
surplus; there is always a deficit. 

So strong is the conviction in our minds that our colleges deserve 
all the aid we now give them, that we cannot recommend any legisla- 
tion which w^ould require from the colleges themselves any contribu- 
tions to the public revenues. 

But there remains for our consideration the college town. Many 
conscientious citizens of the Commonwealth believe that the ])resence 
of a college and the ownership by it of large amounts of property 
exempt from taxation impose upon the community in which it is 
situated a serious financial burden. They approve of the principle 
that we should aid our educational institutions, but they believe the 
whole Commonwealth should bear the burden, rather than that it 
should rest upon a few communities. They ask that the college 
towns shall be reimbursed from the treasury of the Commonwealth 
in amounts ecjual to taxes upon the exempted property. If college 
towns are subjected to unusual burdens and do not receive commen- 
surate benefits because of the location of an educational institution 
within their limits, then we believe they should be reimbursed by the 
State. The philanthropy of Massachusetts is indeed unworthy of 
commendation if it is bestowed at the expense of a few municipalities. 

Towns have not always considered the presence of an educational 
institution a burden. Northampton appropriated $25,000 to have 
Smith College located in that city. In 1863 Amherst, which had been 



PEPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE — 1907 91 

a college town for nearly fifty years, gave what was for her an enormous 
sum — $50,000 — to secure the location within her borders of the 
Massachusetts Agricultural College. Within recent years we have 
seen towns of the State in active and even bitter strife to secure for 
themselves State normal schools. Evidently the towns have not 
considered the presence of these institutions a burden. We are but 
little concerned with the question as to what benefits of an aesthetic 
or intellectual nature the college towns may receive because of the 
presence of the college. We believe these benefits are great, and 
that the citizens unwillingly would be deprived of them. But it is 
clear to us that the question for the Legislature to consider is largely 
a question of dollars and cents. 

We may observe in this connection that the desire for lower taxes 
is not confined to college towns, — it is a desire which finds expression 
in nearly all communities. It is caused by the fact that taxes in 
Massachusetts have increased materially within the last few years. 
In 1878 the average per capita tax was $12.24; in 1904 it was $18.36. 

In some of the college towns we find that a very large proportion 
of the assessable property is owned by educational institutions, and 
is therefore exempt from taxation. In Amherst there is exempted 
property to the value of $2,909,099, while taxes are assessed upon 
property valued at $3,599,900. In Williamstown the corresponding 
figures are $2,120,203 and $3,035,747; in Northampton, $4,416,607 
and $12,739,859; in Cambridge, $25,377,063 and $103,845,600; 
in South Hadley, $1,553,850 and $2,529,372. Despite these facts, 
all these communities appear to be prosperous; in none of them is 
the tax rate abnormally high; none of them have debts above the 
average, or that can in any way be charged to the presence of the 
college. In fact, the financial conditions of all the college towns are 
as satisfactory as those found in the great majority of our communities. 
The tax rate is not an infallible guide, but it is fairly indicative of the 
tax burdens resting upon the inhabitants. In Amherst the tax rate 
for 1906 was $16.25; in Williamstown it was $18.70; in Northampton 
it was $16.50; in Cambridge it was $18.60; in South Hadley it was 
$16.50. These rates are in no case excessive; they are somewhat 
less than the tax rates in other cities and towns which might be prop- 
erly compared with them. We find that the net debts of these muni- 
cipalities at four different periods were as follows: — 



92 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 



Amhorst, 
Williamstown, 
Nortluimpton, 
Cambridge, 
South Hadley, 



1872. 1875. 1878. 1905. 

$127,000 $179,500 S171,700 $83,213 

44,982 40,450 35,580 52,000 

424,000 663,779 613,625 606,038 

1,856,400 4,280,400 3,920,319 7,217,224 

5,500 15,000 62,852 37,411 



The debt of Cambridge shows a large increase, but this is explained 
by facts in no way related to the presence of Harvard University. A 
majority of the cities and towns in the metropolitan district show a 
similar increase. So far as we may judge by the tax rates and the 
debt accounts, the college towns appear to be in no less satisfactory 
condition than are other municipalities of the Commonwealth. 

The presence of an educational institution does remove large 
amounts of property from the tax lists, but there are distinct and easily 
discerned financial benefits which compensate for the loss of taxes. 
The presence of a college increases the value of taxable property 
surrounding it. Thus in Ward 8 of Cambridge, in which ward is 
situated Harvard University, the value of the property actually taxed 
exceeds the value of the property in any ward in the city of equal area. 
Real estate values in every college community are larger upon property 
adjacent to the colleges than upon similar property located elsewhQfe 
within the community. The colleges serve to increase the population 
of the communities in which they are situated, not only by the number 
of the students in attendance, but also by the number of people who 
are attracted to the town in order to sell to the students lodgings, board 
and merchandise of various kinds, and whose income is derived largely 
from the students. The amounts of money expended by students in 
college communities cannot be stated in actual figures, but these 
amounts are large. There are about most of the colleges thriving 
business enterprises Avhich derive a large part of their incomes from 
the students and employees of the colleges. The extent to which 
these businesses are dependent upon college patronage is shown by the 
fact that many of them close during the summer. All of these factors 
contribute to the prosperity of the community and increase the value 
of the taxable property. It seems clear to us that this increase at 
least equals the amount lost by the exemption from taxation of college 
property. 

From our investigations of this subject we are convinced that the 
presence of an educational institution imposes no financial burden. 



REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE 1907 93 

upon the community which is not balanced by adequate compensating 
financial benefits. We are therefore unable to recommend any 
system of reimbursements to the towns by the Commonwealth. 

It has been suggested that the meaning of the present statutes 
relating to this subject can be made clearer. We do not believe it is 
wise to attempt to amplify the present laws. The principle laid down 
in them is sufficiently explicit. The application of this principle to 
specific cases is not the concern of the Legislature; that is a matter 
for the determination of the courts. The decisions of the courts 
appear to be clear. Thus, in the case of Williams College v. Wil- 
liamstown, 167 Mass. 505, the court says: — 

The real estate must be occupied by the corporation, or its officers, for the 
purpose of carrying into effect the purposes of the corporation. 

In the case of Phillips Academy v. Andover, 175 Mass. 118, the 
court says : — 

It is not easy, and perhaps not possible, to define what will constitute 
occupancy under all the circumstances, and we shall not attempt it. 

If the court believes that each case should be decided with reference 
to particular conditions, we hesitate to undertake to establish general 
rules. 

The intent of our laws relating to this matter is understood. There 
are numerous decisions of the courts to which assessors may refer, 
and new contentions that may arise will be adjudicated as are all 
questions of dispute under our statutes, — by the court of competent 
jurisdiction. 

The General Court should hesitate long before it places any burden, 
however slight, upon any of the educational institutions of this Com- 
monwealth. Our forefathers taxed themselves heavily for the main- 
tenance of schools and colleges. It is in our judgment entirely foreign 
to the spirit of our whole educational system and to our conception of 
civic righteousness that we should now tax these institutions for the 
maintenance of other pubKc activities. Nor should the Common- 
wealth allow individual communities to reap the undoubted financial 
benefits consequent upon the presence of a college, and be reim- 
bursed by the State for the loss of its taxes. As long as there is no 
great discrepancy between the taxes lost and the financial benefits 



94 EXEMPTION FKOM TAXATION 

received, the college communities may well be content with the existing 
law. The advantages they derive of a nature other than financial 
are a net gain, and are such that the communities which receive them 
are the envy of less fortunate municipalities, (pp. 52-71.) 

GEORGE H. GARFIELD. 
FRANK M. CHACE. 
ELMER A. STEVENS. 
JOHN F. CUSICK. 
WILLIAI^I TURTLE. 
THOMAS W. WILLIAMS. 
WILMOT R. EVANS, Jr. 
HENRY S. AMES. 
CHARLES A. ANDREWS. 
CLARENCE J. FOGG. 
WARREN E. TARBELL. 
CHARLES V. BLANCHARD. 
JULIUS MEYERS. 
JOHN QUINN, Jr. 
EDWARD C. CREED. v 



SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT UPON THE TAXATION OF 
COLLEGE PROPERTY. 

The principle laid down in 1650 by the early fathers, when they 
exempted from taxation property owned by institutions for the en- 
couragement of higher education, are principles which should be 
continued in this Commonwealth. We rejoice that it was in the Bay 
Colony that this principle of exemption was first initiated on this 
continent, and that Massachusetts can claim the honor that her early 
settlers were its originators. To-day, after a lapse of two hundred 
and fifty years, we are as willing as were the fathers of old to give 
assistance to our educational institutions. We believe unreservedly 
in the exemption from taxation of real and personal- property of literary, 
benevolent and charitable institutions. We do not doubt that they 
confer upon the communities where they are located great blessings and 
benefits. 



REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE — 1907 95 

Yet we dissent from the report of a majority of the committee that 
no legislation should be enacted relating to the subject of the exemption 
from taxation of property o'wned by this class of institutions. We are 
convinced that the principle, which we believe to be wise and with 
which we are in accord, has been abused by certain colleges to such 
an extent that further law is now necessary. Instances of this abuse 
are found in the ownership by certain colleges of residences occupied 
by the president, professors or instructors, and which are used chiefly 
for purposes other than those for which the institutions were established. 
It seems to us that in those cases where the college owns a residence 
occupied by " its president or one of its professors taxes should be 
assessed to the college upon that property. Such residence is used 
for the purposes of the college corporation, if at all, only in a secondary 
way. Colleges were not established to furnish residences to indi- 
vidual citizens, even though such citizens are officers of the college; 
they were established to help educate our young men and women. 
Athletic fields and dining halls are instances of other kinds of property 
Avhich, exempt from taxation, yet furnish to the college a large revenue 
above the cost of their maintenance. It seems to us proper that 
taxes should be paid upon property of this class. 

Conditions of to-day are much altered from the conditions existing 
when our principle of exemption was established. Then the amount 
of property owned by the colleges was small; now it is very large. 
Amherst, Williamstown, Andover, Northampton and Cambridge 
are towns in which large parts of the most valuable property are 
owned by educational institutions, and the property so owned is a 
source of no revenue to the municipality. As we have said above, 
we do not desire to impose burdens upon the college in the way of 
taxes upon the property which is used chiefly for educational purposes. 
We would have them taxed only for that property which they own and 
rent for private use, and for that property which furnishes them a 
profit. 

We cannot believe, however, that it is wise or fair for Massachusetts 
to place upon the college town all the burden resulting from her exemp- 
tion laws aft'ecting college property. In the municipalities we have 
mentioned above, and in other cities and towns to a lesser degree, the 
amount of property exempted from taxation is a very large part of the 
total property in the community. It is such a large proportion of 
the whole that the owners of the taxed property find themselves re- 



96 EXEMPTION 1-KO.M TAXATION 

quired to pay taxes much in excess of their fair projiortion, as measured 
by the vahie of their property compared with the vahie of all property 
in the town. Massachusetts gives aid to her educationtil institutions 
by exem])ting them from taxation. Why, then, should not Massa- 
chusetts bear this burden of exemption herself? Why should it all 
be borne by a few cities and towns ? It is well within bounds to say 
that college property to the value of $65,000,000 is exempt. At a 
rate of $17, the taxes lost upon this property amount to $1,105,000. 
This measures the aid granted to our educational institutions. It also 
measures the burden which the generosity of Massachusetts places 
upon a few of her cities and towns. We recognize that a college 
brings benefits to the town where it is located. Some of these benefits 
are undoubtedly financial. But we cannot believe that the financial 
benefits conferred are equal to the burdens imposed. It is entirely 
possible to determine the net burden of any city or town. This net 
burden should be at once assumed by the Commonwealth. 

If the municipalities are allowed to levy taxes upon parts of the 
property of our educational institutions, as proposed herein, and if 
the net burden imposed by the presence of a college is assumed by the 
State, IVIassachusetts will have corrected what appear to us to be 
serious faults in her present system of exemption. The cost to the 
colleges will be so small as not seriously to embarrass them, while 
the citizens of individual municipalities will be reheved of a burden 
which has been unwisely placed upon them. (pp. 90-92.) 

JULIUS MEYERS. 



VALUE OF EXEMPTED PROPERTY OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 97 






S o 



1>, I 

> ii 

CO O) 

•*-< o 

> g 

■Qd O 

a; O 

2 _g 



Q -1^ 

2 c 



w ^ 



^ ^ 



REMARKS OF CHARIvES W. ELIOT, PRESIDENT OF 
HARVARD UNIVERSITY, BEFORE THE JOINT 
COMMITTEE ON TAXATION, MASSACHU- 
SETTS LEGISLATURE. 

March, 13, 1907. 



The advocates of the several measures proposed for taxing colleges 
use as one argument in support of their proposals an alleged ambiguity 
in the present statute, an ambiguity which has given rise to litigation. 
If there be any ambiguity in the present statute, the opponents of the 
new legislation would be glad to have it removed; so that the intention 
of the Legislature to exempt from taxation institutions of religion, 
education, and charity may be expressed with perfect clearness. It 
is hard to see, however, how language can be plainer than the language 
of the exemption statute. Proposals to change the statute, or to 
reduce the field of its operation, are not properly described as proposals 
to remove ambiguity from the statute. Moreover, the proposed new 
acts contain the very phrase over which Utigation has arisen, "occu- 
pied by them or their officers for the purposes for which they are 
incorporated." The courts have repeatedly been called upon to 
define the meaning of that term, "the purposes for which they are 
incorporated." Senate Bills Nos. 53, 54, and 224 retain this clause. 
House Bill No. 474 does not contain that phrase, because that bill 
relates solely to the repayment by the Commonwealth of one-half of 
any tax assessed by a city or town on an educational institution. More- 
over, Senate Bill No. 54 introduces a new phrase which will be sure 
to give rise to extensive Utigation. It declares that "property owned 
and occupied by any college or university, or by any scientific institu- 
tion authorized to grant degrees, which is used or appropriated, 
wholly or in part, for residential, commercial, or mercantile pur- 
poses, or for dormitories, shall not be exempt from taxation." What 
are the commercial or mercantile purposes of a college, or university, 
or technical school? There are none. At Harvard University, for 

99 



100 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION. 

instance, there are no such purposes in any proper sense of those 
terms. Commercial or mercantile purposes invariably involve the 
application of a profit to private uses. Every man or corporation 
engaged in commerce, manufacturing, or trade is looking for a persona! 
or private profit on every transaction. If he is not seeking that profit, 
he is not in business. 

Letting College Rooms not a Commercial Transaction. 

During the hearing on last Thursday, we several times heard 
the letting of rooms to students described as a commercial trans- 
action on the part of a college. This description is obviously incor- 
rect. It is not a commercial operation for a college to let rooms to 
students; because there is no profit whatever in it for any private 
individual. If, for the college itself, there is ever a balance of receipts 
over expenses on a dormitory, every dollar of that balance is applied 
to the public use of teaching. We also heard of the Harvard Coopera- 
tive Society as carrying on an untaxed mercantile business in com- 
petition with taxed shops about Harvard square. I am glad to 
explain the case of the Harvard Cooperative Society; because it 
perfectly illustrates the real principle which underlies this whole 
subject. The Harvard Cooperative Society was formerly a society 
confined to members of the university, and intended to enable them 
to buy such goods as they needed — clothing, stationery, shoes, bats 
and balls, brushes, soap, etc. — for less money than they could be 
bought for in the ordinary retail shops. There was no profit to any 
individual connected with it, except this advantage of buying good 
articles at lower rates than were elsewhere procurable. It was an aid 
or a facility for students in getting an education, exactly like the col- 
lege dining-hall which yields no profit to anybody concerned, but 
enables students to buy their food cheaper than would otherwise 
be possible. A few years ago it was thought expedient to incor- 
porate the Harvard Cooperative Society, and to carry on a general 
business, not for students only, but for all comers. Up to that time, 
the Society had occupied a college building which was not taxed. 
As soon as it was incorporated, the Society bought from a private 
person the large building on the opposite side of Harvard Square, 
where its excellent business is now conducted; but on that building, 
and its other property, the Society pays taxes just like any other 



REMARKS OF PRESIDENT ELIOT — 1907 101 

shop in Cambridge. In other words, so long as its business was 
confined to members of the University, and offered them, and them 
alone, a pecuniary advantage in buying the necessaries of student 
Hfe, it was exempt from taxation; but the moment it did a general 
business open to everybody, and conducted under the general incor- 
poration law, it became subject to taxation ; it had ceased to be purely 
an aid to students in getting their education. 

Exemption IS Based on Application of Income to a Puplic Use. 

I cannot too strongly insist that in the ordinary mercantile sense 
there is never any "profit" on the operations of a college, university, 
or technical school. It is confusion with regard to the use of this 
word "profit" which explains the presentation of many of the falla- 
cious arguments I have heard this year and in many former years 
before committees of the Legislature examining the question of col- 
lege exemptions. Every source of income of a college or university 
may be described in some inexact or ill-considered sense as yielding 
a profit; but every source of income in an institution of education, 
religion or charity, has a public application^ / and is not yielding a 
profit in the commercial or mercantile sense. It is curious that this 
confusion of thought arises most commonly concerning presidents' 
and professors' houses, dormitories and athletic grounds, and some- 
times concerning dining-halls or refectories, but very seldom concern- 
ing the income from railroad stocks and bonds, public securities, 
mortgages, or other like sources of income. I think I have never 
heard anyone propose at legislative hearings in Massachusetts that 
the personal property of institutions of religion, education, and charity 
should be taxed. The taxing proposals relate to real estate used, 
as the statute says, "for the purposes of the institution." Now the 
plain fact is that the application of the whole income of these exempted 
institutions is the same, and there is no good reason for exempting one 
class or sort of property which does not apply to the whole property. 
The reason for the exemption is that the whole property of exempted 
institutions and all the income thereon is used for public purposes. 
When a college lodges and feeds students it usually competes with 
private persons who also perform these functions. That competition 
is an aid to students, and as such is one of the incentives for colleges 
to maintain dormitories and dining-halls. 



102 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

One advocate of taxing colleges last Thursday asked this ques- 
tion, "Suppose a college did nothing else but let dormitories; should 
not those dormitories be taxed?" Of course they should. Such an 
institution would not be a college at all. It would be nothing but a 
provider of rooms for college students at a mercantile profit. That 
is exactly the business of the trustees or individuals who provide dormi- 
tories for students in Cambridge for the private profit of the owners. 
Such dormitories are a private investment, and their net rents are used 
for nothing but a private purpose; accordingly, they are all taxed, 
and the present valuation for taxation of such buildings in Cambridge 
is $2,519,900. (See p. 111.) 

Taxation of Professors' Houses and Dormitories means 
Diversion of Funds from their Present Public Use. 

The advocates of the legislation which would cause professors' 
houses and dormitories to be taxed all protest that they have no 
desire to injure Massachusetts institutions of education. They 
find themselves unable to face squarely that imputation. Yet what 
they propose would take many thousands of dollars out of the income 
of these institutions now devoted to teaching, and apply it to streets, 
sewers, lights, police, fire department, etc., in the cities and towns 
where these institutions of education are situated. Thus Senator 
Feiker iiidicated clearly that he desired to secure for Northampton 
the full tax on $400,000 of the property of Smith College. That, 
to be sure, is only a portion of the property of Smith College; but if 
Senator Feiker had his w^ay he would subtract $6,800 from the annual 
resources of Smith College applicable to education, and spend that 
money on the schools, highways, sewers, police, etc., of Northampton. 
He would damage Smith College just so much, and reheve taxpayers 
in Northampton by the same amount, in spite of the fact that the 
presence of Smith College has done nothing but good to the property 
holders and business men of Northampton, — a fact which was dem- 
onstrated before the Recess Committee on Taxation last October 
beyond the shadow of a doubt, Northampton having been shown 
to have 35^ per cent, of the taxable property of Hampshire County, 
when it has only 30^ per cent, of the taxable individuals, and only 
32 per cent, of the population of the County. In other words, North- 
ampton is much better off than the average of the County. 



REMARKS OF PRESIDENT ELIOT — 1907 103 

Another advocate of taxing professors' houses and dormitories 
suggested that Senate Bill No. 54 would probably not make more than 
a million dollars' worth of college property assessable in Cambridge, 
and that taxes on such an amount would be a trifle for Harvard 
University. True, such legislation would not ruin Harvard Univer- 
sity; it would simply divert $19,000 a year, or four professors' salaries, 
from teaching purposes to the ordinary Cambridge objects of muni- 
cipal expenditure; but so far as it went it would be nothing but an 
injury to Harvard University, and whoever advocates it is advocating 
the diversion of money heretofore used for educational purposes to 
lower public uses, namely, city expenses. So far forth, he is impairing 
the Massachusetts faith in education as the supreme public interest. 
I make allowances for the errors of some of the advocates of these 
pitiful measures, when I see that they are not Massachusetts born, 
and cannot be expected to understand the Massachusetts policy 
towards education so well as those of us who are natives; but I 
want to point out plainly that their protests that they are not attacking, 
or attempting to injure, Massachusetts institutions of higher educa- 
tion, do not blind or deceive anybody. 

Property Exempted for a Puplic Use Enriches a Community. 

The attorney for the town of Amherst made much of the fact that 
the valuation of property exempted in the town of Amherst was 47 
per cent, of the whole valuation of the town, or, in other words, that 
in Amherst the value of the exempted property was almost as great 
as the value of the assessable property; and he seemed to think that 
this fact proved that the presence of Amherst College and the State 
Agricultural College in the town of Amherst was a burden on that 
town. Before the Recess Committee on Taxation, last October, it 
was conclusively proved that the amount of exempted property in a 
city or town gave no indication whatever of the financial condition 
of the town itself, provided the amount of assessable property was 
well proportioned to the number of assessable persons in the town; 
that some Massachusetts cities and towns in which the amount of 
exempted property was large were decidedly more prosperous than 
similar cities and towns in which the amount of exempted property 
was small; that the most probable supposition was that a town with 
large amounts of exempted property would be a better town to live 



104 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

in, and therefore a more prosperous town, than a place with a small 
amount of exempted property in churches, colleges, schools, hospitals, 
and parks; but, at any rate, that the existence of a large amount of 
exempted property gave no indication that the town was financially 
oppressed or burdened. Thus, the total amount of exempteci property 
in the city of Boston is enormous, and is increasing: as the value of 
land in the best parts of the city rises, handsomer and better-planned 
buildings are erected for religious, educational, and charitable purposes, 
and ])arks and playgrounds increase in number and in value. 

Consider for a moment what Boston Common means in the way 
of exempted value. Consider that the Harvard Medical School 
alone has lately added three millions of dollars to the value of property 
exempted in Boston, and will, within a few years, add as much more, 
through the hospitals which are to be built about the Medical School. 
Consider what the presence of this State House means in the way of 
exempted property for the city of Boston. Consider the great parks 
and parkways which Boston has built and set aside forever for public 
enjoyment. And then realize fully that all these exempted properties 
in Boston make it richer and not poorer; that they are not a burden, 
but a priceless possession, not only for the present, but for future 
generations. 

Exemption an Imaginary Burden. 

To return to Amherst. Amherst, probably because of the presence 
within her limits of Amherst College and the State Agricultural Col- 
lege, has a lower tax rate than Ware, Easthampton or South Hadley, 
comparable towns, except that they have not nearly so much exempted 
property as Amherst. The tax rate in Amherst is decidedly lower 
than the average tax rate of the County. It has 8J per cent, of the 
population of the County, but 8.8 per cent, of the taxable individuals 
residing in the County, and 10 per cent, of all the taxable property 
in the County. If the presence of exempted property within the limits 
of the town were a burden, Amherst's burden would indeed be large. 
Its singularly prosperous condition as compared with the rest of the 
County proves that the presence of its large proportion of exempted 
property is no burden at all, but simply an advantage. With a few 
insignificant qualifications, the same is true of all the towns and 
cities in the Commonwealth which enjoy the presence of colleges or 



REMARKS OF PRESIDENT ELIOT — 1907 105 

universities. No burden falls upon them in consequence of the 
exemptions within their limits; but, on the contrary, their financial 
condition is better than that of the towns and cities which do not enjoy 
the presence of valuable educational institutions. And yet the ears 
of this Committee and of many earlier Committees have been wearied 
with cries for relief from a burden which is wholly imaginary. 

// 
Reimbursement of Towns not called for, there being no 
Local Burden. 

The same argument to an imaginary burden is used in support 
of the various proposals that the Commonwealth shall hereafter 
annually pay to every city or town in which an educational institution 
is situated the whole or one-half of the tax levied upon the property 
of such institution. This proposition assumes that there is a local 
burden resulting from the legislation of the Commonwealth in favor 
of religious, educational, and charitable institutions ; it admits that 
it is the duty of the Commonwealth to aid such institutions, but insists 
that the Commonwealth should not force the cities and towns where 
these institutions are situated to give that aid, but should give the aid 
itself. If, as I have pointed out, the legislation of the Commonwealth 
imposes no burden on the towns and cities in which these exempted 
institutions are situated, the whole argument for annual payments 
from the treasury of the Commonwealth to these towns and cities falls 
to the ground. The accompanying allegation that Massachusetts 
has not really aided these institutions of education and charity has 
no foundation. Massachusetts has cherished her colleges and tech- 
nical schools by direct grants, and she aids some of them still in that 
way, besides supporting the State Agricultural College and the normal 
schools. You may still see at Harvard College the president's house 
which the Province of Massachusetts built and gave to the College. 
You may still see there three other venerable buildings which the 
Province built and gave to the College, two of them built for dormi- 
tories and one for the other public uses of the College. Between 
1636 and 1824 Harvard College received the sum of $216,000 in 
numerous small grants made by the Commonwealth in aid of the 
College. To-day, the Commonwealth is paying $25,000 a year to 
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Province and the 
Commonwealth have aided the institutions of higher education, and 



106 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

the Commonwealth is still aiding them. The exemption statute 
itself is effective cherishing. The Legislature of JNIassachusetts is 
far too intelligent to be influenced by the false statement that she 
neglects to cherish her institutions of higher education, and is also 
too intelligent to vote to pay large sums of money to the cities and 
towns which contain colleges or universities, in order to relieve those 
communities from a wholly imaginary burden. Let me remark in 
passing that under House Bill No. 474 the Commonwealth would 
annually pay to the city of Cambridge at least $200,000 a year, w ith 
the sole result of reducing to that extent the tax levied on the taxable 
citizens of Cambridge. Cambridge already possesses more than 18 
per cent, of the taxable property in ]\liddlesex County, while it has 
but 16 per cent, of the population of the County. Senate Bill No. 
53 proposes that the whole of the tax levied locally on the real estate 
belonging to literary and scientific institutions shall be paid by the 
Commonwealth to the city or town which contains the exempted insti- 
tutions; under such a law an immense sum would be annually payable 
to the city of Boston out of the State Treasury, since Boston contains a 
large number of exempted literary and scientific institutions which 
own costly lands and buildings. To be sure, under such legislation 
(if I understand it) the exempted institutions would not suffer any 
reduction of the resources applicable to their public objects, but the 
State Treasury would suffer severely, not for the promotion of religion, 
education, or charity, but to relieve the citizens of certain privileged 
cities or towns from a burden which is AvhoUy imaginary, or, in other 
words, to give those fortunate cities and towns a large pecuniary 
bonus in addition to the advantages which they derive from the pres- 
ence of the exempted institutions. It would be a striking peculiarity 
of such legislation that the more the value of land rose in the vicinity 
of the exempted institutions, in consequence of the good effects of 
those institutions on the towns and cities in which they are situated, 
the larger would be the payment made to those towns and cities by 
the Commonwealth. Thus, the value of the land about the site of 
Harvard College in Cambridge has risen very much within the last ten 
years, and is likely to rise, because of the presence of the College. 
The higher goes the price of land in its vicinity the higher will be 
the assessors' valuation of the territory occupied by the College, 
and the greater will be the sum to be paid annually from the State 
Treasury to the city of Cambridge. In general, the more prosperous 



REMARKS OF PRESIDENT ELIOT — 1907 107 

the city of Cambridge or the city of Boston became, a prosperity 
indicated in the values of Cambridge or Boston real estate, the larger 
would be the sums annually to be paid by the Commonwealth to the 
city. 

Excessive Valuations. 

A single foolish purchase by a small but rich college club of a 
corner lot opposite the College at an extravagant price induced the 
■ Cambridge assessors to raise the valuation of large areas of land about 
the site of the College, and to add correspondingly to their valuation 
of real estate exempted in Cambridge. The additions they made to 
the valuations were extravagant; so that they were forced subse- 
quently to retrace some of the steps they had taken. Consider how 
the temptation to excessive valuation of real estate, to which assessors 
are now subject, would be increased, if for every increase of valuation 
in the real estate of their town or city they could suck thousands of 
dollars out of the State Treasury under such legislation as that of 
Senate Bill No. 224 or House Bill No. 474. 

Massachusetts does not Grudge the National Service 
Rendered by its Colleges. 

I heard on Thursday last with pleasure and surprise, one new 
ai:gument in favor of putting the support of every institution of higher 
education on the state or the nation, rather than on the locality in 
which the institution is situated. Of course, this new argument 
assumed, what is conspicuously untrue, that the locality carries a 
burden in support or aid of the institution of education; but over- 
looking for a moment that ancient fallacy, there was a new element 
in the argument, namely, that while a church is a. purely local institu- 
tion, a college or technical school is not; for the college or technical 
school is resorted to by students from all parts of the state, or all parts 
of the country, and, therefore, the state, or the whole country, ought 
to support it or aid it. Thus students from many parts of the country 
and some foreign countries resort to Amherst College. Why should 
the town of Amherst do anything for them? The first answer to 
this question is that the town of Amherst does not support Amherst 
College, or even contribute to its support. The College is supported 
partly by the students who resort to it and pay its tuition fees, and 



108 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

partly by the benevolent individuals in many parts of the country 
who endowed it under the protecting and cherishing laws of Massa- 
chusetts. How short-sighted and ungenerous is this argument! 
Can we suppose that the people of Massachusetts, or of any town or 
city in INIassachusetts, really desire that the resort to Massachusetts 
institutions of education should become less national in range ? Do 
the people of the Commonwealth grudge to the students who come to 
our excellent institutions of education from other parts of the country 
or from other countries, the facilities they seek and find in Massachu- 
setts institutions ? Do the people of the Commonwealth really desire 
to check the flow of gifts and benefactions from outside of Massa- 
chusetts to these institutions of higher education? It is incredi- 
ble that they should feel any such desire. The people are proud 
of the reputation of the Massachusetts institutions of higher education. 
They welcome to these institutions students from all other parts of 
the country and from other countries; and they take especial pride 
in promoting in every possible way the Massachusetts industry of 
giving instruction. IMoreover, they know that an institution to which 
students resort from far and wide will be for that reason a better and 
more influential institution. It would be easy to check both the flow 
of students and the flow of money into the Massachusetts institutions. 
Would the General Board of Education, lately so largely endowed, 
give any support to Massachusetts institutions if they could suppose 
that Massachusetts was going to tax educational benefactions ? 
Would the great stream of benefactions continue to flow to Massa- 
chusetts institutions if intending givers learned that JVIassachusetts 
entertained a proposal to tax any part of the properties set aside 
forever under the existing laws of Massachusetts for the purposes 
of higher education ? It has been repeatedly said, during the dis- 
cussion of these bills which propose to tax certain portions of college 
property, that the immediate damage caused by this legislation would 
be small. True, the edge of the wedge is thin, and it is not proposed 
at this moment to drive it in very far; but no prudent man will per- 
mit even a thin wedge to be inserted into the post which supports the 
corner of his dwelling. This proposed legislation, petty as it is in 
its immediate efl'ects, will go far to impair confidence in the stability 
of the great ^Massachusetts policy for the support of the higher educa- 
tion, a policy which has contributed largely to make Massachusetts 
what it is, a policy which has produced institutions of education as yet 
unsurpassed in the entire country. 



REMARKS OF PRESIDENT ELIOT — 1907 109 

No Evidence that Taxed Land is Rendered Exempt Faster 
THAN Compensating Benefits are Diffused. 

I turn now to consider some of the predictions about the future 
effects of insistence on the part of Massachusetts in her present policy 
of exempting from taxation her institutions of higher education. 
It is said that under the exemption poUcy of Massachusetts the colleges 
and other exempted institutions are continually taking more and 
more of the real estate of their towns or cities out of the taxable lists 
by buying private property which has heretofore been taxed, and 
adding such property to the real estate already devoted to their own 
educational purposes, thus progressively diminishing the assessable 
valuations of their towns or cities. On this suggestion of future evil 
several reassuring comments may be made. In the first place, when 
a college or hospital buys private property in its vicinity, it pays for 
it, and the price it pays ordinarily remains as taxable property in the 
town or city. Occasionally exceptions to this rule will occur; but 
such is the rule. In the next place, by increasing its holdings, a 
college usually increases the valuations of the lands lying about or 
near its holdings, old and new. Thirdly, v^hen a college increases 
its holdings, other lands in the same town or city usually come into 
use and acquire a new vakie. There is plenty of unoccupied land in 
every Massachusetts town or city which harbors a college, waiting 
to experience this rise of value. In the city of Cambridge there are 
at this moment hundreds of acres of unmarketable land waiting for 
Harvard University, or new industries, or new residences to give 
them value. Fourthly, it is clear that there is no existing evil of this 
sort within the Commonwealth; and that it is never expedient to 
legislate against non-existent evils. All the towns and cities in the 
Commonwealth which contain institutions of higher education are 
to-day better off in regard to their several amounts of taxable real 
estate than the corresponding towns and cities which do not contain 
colleges. This is not a matter of opinion; it is demonstrable from 
the published tables of the Commonwealth's Tax Commissioner. 
If, in the future, any evil of this sort shall appear locally, it will prob- 
ably not be beyond the ingenuity of the Legislature, aided by the 
assessors, to devise a local remedy. 



iiq exemption from taxation 

Publicity of Accounts a Proper CoxNtdition of Exemption, and 
THE ONLY Needed Defense against its Abuse. 

Finally, we must consider what weight to attribute to a line of 
argumentation always used by the advocates of taxing colleges. 
They say — where there is so much smoke there must be fire; where 
there is so much sense of injury there must be some injustice; this 
proposed legislation is bound to come, therefore it had better come 
now. Doubtless there is fire under this smoke. There is the fire 
of ignorance, the fire of jealousy, and the fire of natural desire to get 
one's own taxes reduced by acquiring the right to tax large masses 
of visible property which now are exempted. There is also the 
burning zeal of assessors eager to get hold of new resources for taxa- 
tion. The right way to deal with these smoky fires is to put them 
out by means of the cooling streams of knowledge, unselfishness, 
and public spirit, and of wise legislation to improve our methods of 
taxation. The argument that something is bound to come, and there- 
fore shall arrive now, ought to be put out of court without ceremony 
as wholly unworthy of intelligent freemen. It is not destiny which 
has made Massachusetts; it is Massachusetts that has carved out her 
own destiny. The traditional policy of Massachusetts needs, in 
my opinion, only one defense, and that is, a complete publicity con- 
cerning its own workings. If only the whole peo])le of the Common- 
weahh could be shown just how the endo^Mnent and exemption 
policy has worked, and is working, for the highest interests of INIassa- 
chusetts, the people would not i)ermit that policy to be tarn jeered with. 
I am not sure that existing legislation has adecjuately procured this 
very desirable complete publicity; indeed, the amount of misappre- 
hension on this subject throughout the Commonwealth, even among 
the educated classes, seems to show that the present provisions for 
publicity are inadequate. All the wise exempted institutions publish 
their annual accounts as fully as possible. I venture to suggest to 
this Committee that no institution or society ought to be exempted 
from taxation which does not publish in complete form its annual 
accounts. Such publication is needed to show the public that the 
whole income of such institutions and societies is really devoted to 
public uses of religion, education, or charity. 



PRIVATE DORMITORIES TAXED — 1905 



111 



PRIVATE DORMITORIES TAXED IN CAMBRIDGE, 1905. 



Name of Building olBufldtag 

ClaverlyHall $125,000 

Apley Court 55,000 

Randolph Hall 200,000 

Apthorp House . " . . . . 7,000 

Russell Hall ...... 47,000 

Westmorly Court .... 140,000 

Quincy Hall 20,000 

Brentford Hall . .... . 60,000 

Ware Hall . 134,000 

Fairfax Hall 73,000 

Hampden Hall ..... 130,000 

Little's Bl'k, 1350 Mass. Av. 30,000 

Little's Bl'k, 1358 Mass. Av. 25,000 

DunsterHall ' 150,000 

Dana Chambers . . . . . 70,000 

Theta Delta Chi 23,300 

Read's Block ...... 20,000 

Drayton Hall . . . ... 35,000 

Trinity Hall ...... 15,000 

Craigie Hall ...... 110,000 

Waverley Hall 50,000 

Shepherd Block 10,000 

Hapgood Hall 10,000 

25 and 27 Holyoke St. . . . 9,000 

Ridgely Hall 70,000 

68 Mt. Auburn St. . . ... 4,500 

5 and 7 Linden St 7,000 

Beck Hall . 58,500 

66 Winthrop St. . . . . . 3,000 

Totals $1,691,300 



Valuation 


Total 


Real Estate 


of Land 


Valuation 


Tax 


$42,000 


$167,000 


$3,173.00 


27,000 


82,000 


1,558.00 


60,000 


260,000 


4,940.00 


68,000 


75,000 


1,425.00 


35,000 


82,000 


1,558.00 


57,000 


197,000 


3,743.00 


12,000 


32,000 


608.00 


11,400 


71,400 


1,356.60 


21,000 


155,000 


2,945.00 


72,800 


145,800 


2,770.20 


39,000 


169,000 


3,211.00 


40,500 


70,500 


1,339.50 


43,800 


68,800 


1,307.20 


50,000 


200,000 


3,800.00 


45,000 


115,000 


2,185.00 


12J000 


35,300 


670.70 


37,000 


57,000 


1,083.00 


7,000 


42,000 


798.00 


5,800 


20,800 


395.20 


18,000 


128,000 


2,432.00 


4,200 


54,200 


1,029.80 


8,800 


18,800 


357.20 


9,100 


19,100 


362.90 


20,000 


29,000 


551.00 


10,000 


80,000 


1,520.00 


15,000 


19,500 


370.50 


17,500 


24,500 


465.50 


36,000 


94,500 


1,795.50 


3,700 


6,700 


127.30 



$828,600 $2,519,900 $47,878.10 



112 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 



STATEMENT OF MARY E. WOOLLEY, PRESIDENT OF 

MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE, IN REGARD TO 

TAXATION OF COLLEGE PROPERTY. 

There is a higher ground than that of the amount of money brought 
into a town, in the service which is rendered to the community, as well 
as to the state, by the education of its citizens, but estimated simply 
in terms of material gain, what are some of the facts with regard to 
the advantages which the college town enjoys? The value of Mount 
Holyoke to South Hadley was appreciated at the time of the founding 
of the institution as a seminary in 1837. Before the site was deter- 
mined several towns in Western Massachusetts, — South Deerfield, 
Sunderland and South Hadley, not only signified their willingness 
to accept the new institution as a neighbor, but actually bid for it, 
by offering handsome subscriptions to assist in the building. It is 
evident that in those days New England towns looked upon an insti- 
tution of learning not as an encumbrance, but as an honor and aid. 
We do not need, however, to go back to the early days of the last cen- 
tury to find this attitude. Ten years ago when fire destroyed the 
main building of the college, the suggestion that it would be a favor- 
able time to remove the plant to a larger town where it could have 
the advantage of fire protection, water works, lighting plant and 
sewerage system and not be at the expense and inconvenience of 
providing for itself all these facilities, as it does, the mere suggestion 
was met by a protest from the townspeople, a protest which it is fair 
to assume, would be renewed were such a suggestion made today. 
The conditions at South Hadley are different from those of most 
college towns, — the town does not furnish fire protection, water- 
supply, a sewerage system, or lighting plant; all of these the College 
is obliged to provide for itself. It also clears the snow from the street 
walks in front of the campus in winter, has the street sprinkled in 
summer, and paid for half the concrete sidewalk on College Street, 
which is as great an advantage to the people of the village as to the 
College itself. 

This year the College gives employment to between forty-five and 
fifty people, residents of South Hadley outside of college houses, and 
serving as firemen, gardeners, carpenters, electricians, janitors, cleaners 



STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT WOOLLEY 113 

and laundresses, supporting not only them, but also their famihes, 
that is, from one hundred and fifty to two hundred people. Since 
the beginning of this discussion, my attention has been called to 
College Street, on which the campus fronts, and I have been interested 
to notice that within a stretch of half a mile, containing thirty-four 
houses and stores, there are only three which have not derived an 
income directly from the College; of those three, two are the black- 
smith and barber, both of whom are indirectly indebted to the same 
institution ! 

The statement was made last Friday that South Hadley does not 
receive much benefit from the students living in the village, since 
they are there only temporarily. At the present time there are thirty- 
nine members of the College Faculty living in the village, two of them 
owning their houses, the others renting or boarding. In addition, 
there have been since last September, eighty-two students also living 
in the village, most of them remaining until the beginning of the 
second semester, about a month ago. There are now sixty -four 
students living in the village, making in all over one hundred mem- 
bers of the College likely to remain there throughout the year. 

The number of students living in the town is limited by the number 
of people willing to receive them. Since last December the appli- 
cants for admission next September have been put on to the "waiting 
list" with the possibility but not the assurance of admission, simply 
because we cannot find places for them in South Hadley. 

The College paid to the village of South Hadley Centre last year 
over fifty-five thousand dollars, including board and rental for Faculty 
and students living in the village houses, wages to men and women, 
residents of the village and employed by the College, contribution 
to the parish to aid in the support of the church, charges for expressage 
and other carriage, and milk and provisions purchased. The fifty- 
five thousand dollars, however, does not include the amount of money 
spent by members of the College at the stores in the village and at the 
"tea room" or restaurant, or the patronage of the dressmakers, the 
shoemaker and the florist, almost if not entirely, supported by them. 

The restaurant closes at Commencement and opens again with the 
College in the autumn, and one of the store-keepers assured me that 
he might profitably follow that policy, — his trade was so light in 
the summer. The drug store and tea-room have been opened within 
the last three years to meet the demand of the College and probably 



114 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

would not have been established had it not been for that demand, 
thus depriving the village of profitable rentals. It would be difficult 
to compute the amount of money which flows into the town annually 
through these channels, but it needs no argument to prove that thou- 
sands of dollars are added to the town in these ways. No one who 
knows the average college student, man or woman, would cjuestion 
the lucrative character of the establishments which furnish ice-cream, 
soda water, candy, luncheons, afternoon tea, fudge materials, crackers, 
olives, canned goods and a list of other delicacies dear to the inner 
man or woman of collegiate age. 

May I add that the $55,000 paid by the College to the town does not 
include the amount which is paid in taxes on the six houses owned by 
the College, occupied mainly by people in its service, in one case the 
Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds, Reference has been made 
to the amount of land, desirable building lots, which the College has 
taken. Of our seven large dormitories, only one fronts directly on 
the street; the others are on what were originally back lots, made 
suitable by under-drainage and filling, which probably would never 
have been used for any purpose other than pasturage. The most 
beautiful part of the campus, "Prospect," was a rocky, barren hill 
until the College bought and beautified it. 

The location of a college in any town very materially increases the 
valuation of the property. Within the last three years six houses have 
been built in the immediate neighborhood of the campus, five of them 
directly opposite and used almost exclusively by college people. Two 
of these were finished last autumn, one of them an apartment house 
with twelve apartments, nine of which are already occupied by mem- 
bers of the Faculty; the other, a large house built by an alumna of 
the College in order to take students as boarders, has eighteen there 
this year. \Yithin the last month two parties have been to the speaker 
with the hope that there might be some way of securing houses to use 
for college boarders, but there are none for rental in South Hadley 
to-day, according to the statements of these people who are in search 
of them. This excess of demand beyond supply must mean an in- 
creased valuation of property, as is shown by the facts that a house 
lot near the campus sold for about $1000 three or four years ago, 
at double the price previously paid for similar lots, and last summer 
a lot not more than 500 ft. distant from it, sold for $1600, four times 
its valuation ten years ago. One member of the Faculty who has 



STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT WOOLLEY 115 

built a hovise on a lot, which by the present tax rate would pay a tax 
of about ten dollars, pays about one hundred dollars, ten times the 
amount which would be paid on the original property. The five other 
houses recently built near the campus of the College, probably show a 
corresponding increase coming to the town in taxes, because of the 
College. 

The College has added to the value of property in other ways. 
In 1896, realizing the need of an electric road to connect it with the 
city of Holyoke, the College cooperated with the town in securing it, 
several years at least before the company would have been willing to 
build a railway to so small a village. The advantages to the town 
of this addition, not only in convenience and the increased desirability 
of the property, but also in the income which it receives from the tax 
are obvious. In 1901 an acetelyne gas plant was added and to-day 
the large consumers are the people who keep college boarders, thus 
making the convenience possible. 

I have said nothing about the value of the College to the town in 
lines of general culture. Do many New England villages the size 
of South Hadley support a course of free lectures given by some of 
the finest specialists in the country; a series of musical recitals, also 
free, or with so low an admission that it is practically discounted; a 
carefully selected library of more than 30,000 volumes ; an art museum 
with a collection worth many thousands of dollars ? Such additions 
increase the desirability of a town as a place of residence and thus 
directly affect its property value. 

It has been said that the proposed bill concerns only a small part 
of the college property and therefore could not be a serious disadvan- 
tage to the College from the financial point of view. This is certainly 
not true in the case of the colleges for women where the dormitory is 
an important part of the entire scheme of education. The argument 
in favor of dining halls for men that they may make possible a college 
course for students of limited means, is applicable with even greater 
force to women, who, for various reasons, are less able to earn money 
during their student days and are more dependent upon the liberality 
of the College. 

The rates at Mount Holyoke are very low, $300 for board and 
tuition, and only by the closest economy have the expenditures been 
kept within the receipts. It is not strange that the people in the 
village say that they cannot afford to board the students at the rate at 



116 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

\\ hich the College takes them, but even the S30 per year additional, 
which is charged at the village houses, is prohibitive in the case of 
many applicants for admission. 

What would taxation of the dormitories at Mount Holyoke mean ? 
The passage of such a bill could have but one result in our case, sin- 
cerely as we might deprecate it, and that is a raising of the rates and 
thus the limitation of the education which the College gives, to the 
students of larger means. There would be no other course possible. 

We count ourselves fortunate in meeting expenses, a difficult proc- 
ess with the increased cost of provisions, of coal, of service, the needed 
repairs as the buildings grow older, and many incidentals. Salaries 
must not be diminished, rather, they should be increased, for no work 
in the country is so notoriously underpaid as the profession of teaching, 
especially in the institutions of higher learning, where not only is a 
long and expensive training required as a preparation, but other 
expenses, such as books, travel, study, are indispensable for the in- 
structor who wishes to keep abreast of his subject. Scientific appara- 
tus for the laboratories, photographs and casts for the courses in art 
and history, and books for all departments, call for larger and larger 
expenditure to meet the demand of the age for well trained men and 
women in all Unes of work. 

It has already been shown that no college is a money making insti- 
tution. The student does not pay for what he actually receives from 
the college. No institution of higher education in Massachusetts 
would be able to continue were it dependent solely upon students' 
fees, which do not begin to meet current expenses. Not only are the 
endowments private benefactions, but in most cases the dormitories 
as well. We cannot afford to build a dormitory to-day, for the board 
of the students would not pay the interest, to say nothing of the sinking 
fund. Dormitories then are private benefactions, a gift to the students 
and to the town. When a college is so fortunate as to have the receipts 
from its dormitories exceed the cost of running them, those receipts 
go immediately into the plant to increase the efficiency of the product, 
in this case the human product of trained powers and finer character. 

A recent writer on education says that by economy is always meant 
economy of money and never for a minute the economy of human in- 
tellect and human character that in the end serve the state more than 
any fiscal scheme, however shrewd and far reaching. It would indeed 
be a short sighted economy on the part of the state to advocate any 



STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT WOOLLEY 117 

measure which would tend to limit the number of its citizens trained 
for efficient service.\\ Every institution represented here to-day could fill 
far more time than you would be willing to allow, simply in the enu- 
meration of the men and women among the graduates who have ren- 
dered marked service to the state, in many cases that which may be 
called distinguished, in many more that which while less widely known, 
has not been less vital to the welfare of this commonwealth. In the 
few minutes M^hich are left I should like to call attention to one line of 
work in which the alumnae of Mount Holyoke College together with 
the graduates of other institutions, have been engaged. More than 
two-thirds of our graduates have been teachers, at least for a time, 
the majority of them in the public schools, a work of which the impor- 
tance can hardly be over estimated. The hope of the community, - 
the state and the nation, is in the education, the development in char- 
acter of the children, not only of American parentage, but even more 
of those born into homes in which the meaning and aims of our Ameri- 
can life are an unknown tongue. A teacher in an East Side school 
in New York writes, — "Every year as I face a roomful of children 
without a name among them that suggests American ancestry, or Ameri- 
can traditions I am impressed with the fact that here are American 
citizens in the making!" American citizens in the making! Is there 
any service more vital to the welfare of the country than that which is 
entrusted to our teachers? And is there any position where there is 
greater need of the finest culture and the finest character that our col- 
leges can supply ? The great majority of these children never reach 
the colleges, the high schools, or even the upper grades of the elemen- 
tary schools. Their training, not only in the rudiments of learning, 
but also in the rudiments of character, must come to them from their 
teachers, if they are ever to have it at all. 

There is a close relationship then between the college and the 
state and the latter is the debtor in more ways than one. Massachu- 
setts gives no endowment, does not help to make the work possible by 
appropriation, but it does not seem credible that she can think of put- 
ting obstacles in the way of education and thus make it the luxury 
of the rich. The western states appropriate annually thousands and 
hundreds of thousands of dollars for the state universities and thus 
bring higher education within the reach of all. Will this state, for 
generations the leader in education, take a backward step and make 
college difficult, if not impossible for the many ? 



118 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

Reference has been made to the fact that money received from taxa- 
tion of the colleges would enable the state to send an indefinite number 
of students to Oxford or Cambridge. Is it possible that I heard that 
statement aright? Is it true that this state, honored throughout the 
\\orld for its leadership in education, ^\ould consider for an instant 
the taking of a secondary place ? I had thought that we were proud 
of drawing students from England and the Continent and the far East, 
to our universities and institutes of technology and colleges, not of 
sending them away with the admission that w^e are not longer able to 
give them as fine educational advantages as the civilized world aftords. 

It cannot be that the advocates of this measure realize its undemo- 
cratic character or the short-sightedness of the policy which would 
mean lessened ability on the part of the colleges to give the best oppor- 
tunities for education, or such increase in the rates as would exclude 
a large part of the men and the women w^hom the state needs as 
trained and efficient servants. 



REMARKS OF G. STANLEY HALL, PRESIDENT OF 

CLARK UNIVERSITY, BEFORE THE JOINT COI\I- 

MITTEE ON TAXATION, MASSACHUSETTS 

LEGISLATURE, MARCH, 1907. 

The relations between Clark University and the conniiunity have 
been unique and in some respects ideal. When Worcester first heard 
that one of its citizens had projected a university, the city government 
promptly framed a congratulatory address and the north and south 
ends of the town vied ^^ ith each other in offering inducements to win it. 
Before the building was completed, the city bought and reconstructed 
at much expense an attractive park across the way which was named 
University Park. The directors of the Board of Trade comprising 
between 400 and 500 members surprised us by a spontaneous com- 
munication in which they said the city "has been greatly honored 
in being selected as the place in which to establish a university" and 
they pledged the sympathy "of every citizen who entertains in any 
degree the interests and functions of knowledge among the himian 



STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT HALL, 1907 119 

race." During the eighteen years of its existence the town in its 
locality has developed rapidly as is indicated by the fact that five new 
churches have been organized or houses of worship erected nearby, 
while valuations which have been the bases of taxation have been 
raised in some cases five times, probably far more than covering the 
total wealth of all the real estate of the University. In its annual 
circulars the Board of Trade cites the University as one of the attrac- 
tions which make the town desirable for businesses in quest of loca- 
tion. Both individuals and groups of individuals have repeatedly 
made spontaneous and substantial contributions to its work. Very 
many lectures have been given, open freely to and largely attended 
by citizens, i myself have given scores of such lectures at the Uni- 
versity and at very many churches, clubs, etc., having never received 
a cent of pay. There has been from the first a total absence of all 
town versus gown spirit. 

Again, some institutions are charged with secreting their affairs, but 
by the will of the founder of Clark University the complete report of the 
treasurer giving all details is filed each year with the mayor where it 
is open to inspection by any citizen of Worcester. In the original 
letter of gift the founder stated that the donation was for the benefit 
of the city of Worcester. The library of the University is open freely 
to citizens, some of Avhom make extensive use of it. The art collec- 
tions also have been gratuitously open to visitors from the first. It is 
therefore not surprising that the city of Worcester has shown no dispo- 
sition to tax either the professors' residences or the small tracts of land 
we have owned from the first. Our institution is a public charity 
bequeathed in trust for the benefit of the city and the community, and 
the world. The trustees give their services. Any citizen is eligible to 
the Board and its members render onerous but unremunerated 
services. In no other institution of the kind known to me in the 
world does so small a proportion of the running expenses come from 
the students and in very few is the patronage of the college department 
so local. Even in the college department, where most fees are paid, 
my colleague, its head, Carroll D. Wright, figures that it costs $500 
a year to educate each student, while the fee is only $50. In the 
University from the first, the great majority of students pay no fee 
and many of them have received stipends in the form of scholarships 
and fellowships. We have no dormitories and the money that stu- 
dents bring here is chiefly left in our stores and in private boarding 
houses kept by citizens. 



120 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

No sudi institution can ever be rich in the sense that any one can 
take our profits, for if there were such they would be at once put to 
work to extend the pubHc utiHty of the institution, for any endowed 
university is as truly a public charity as an ori)hanage or a library. 
If you tax us, the amount of service we render is by so much reduced. 
We might scale down salaries or try the hazardous experiment of 
increasing fees, which would probably reduce the number of students 
or take it out of the library or the appropriations for apparatus and 
running expenses or for repairs, care of grounds, etc., so that the 
attractiveness of the plant would suffer. On the other hand, suppose 
the State made us a gift as Massachusetts once did to Harvard and 
still does to technical institutions. Suppose in this or in any other 
way our resources were at once doubled. Neither the president, 
nor professors nor any other servants of the University would be 
likely to receive more pay, although there would be more work to do. 
Nothing would be laid up, but only the service rendered to the com- 
munity and the State would be doubled. 

Another very vital point not, I think, sufficiently realized is this. 
The great universities of the jNIiddle West have, after a generation 
or two of struggle, now become so influential, partly through their 
graduates in the State legislatures, that they can now have, as one presi- 
dent lately boasted, almost anything that they ask in reason from the 
State. They are now the chief though happily friendly rivals of the 
old endowed universities of the East. Many of them have received 
large private donations in addition to the annual appropriations from 
the state. Suppose the latter or some private citizen were to purchase 
and give half a dozen of the most valuable blocks to the state uni- 
versity. This property would at once be completely exempted from 
taxation, for in these institutions nothing whatever can be taxed any 
more than State's prisons, almshouses or asylums. In the competi- 
tion between these two classes of institutions for students and for 
professors, the area from which New England and especially Massa- 
chusetts institutions draw their students is becoming relatively more 
and more restricted so that they are increasingly local in their pat- 
ronage if not in their donations. In view of this condition, the policy 
in reversing all the old traditions of Massachusetts from the Colonial 
days to the present and taxing colleges and universities seems piti- 
fully short-sighted, for it lays a serious handicap upon us of the East 
and seems very small politics. Indeed, so lavish are the funds which 



REMARKS OF PRESIDENT SEELYE, 1907 121 

the states now pour upon their own institutions which are perhaps the 
most characteristic creations of the Mississippi States that we have 
several times heard the prediction that the institutions of the East 
have had their day and will slowly fall behind in the race. The Western 
institutions are proud and strong because they feel that the great 
states are behind them. They charge practically no fees to their 
students. There can be no doubt, however, that on the whole public 
institutions like these are less economically administered than private 
institutions. The propositions lately considered in this state to tax 
colleges and universities are not creditable to our public spirit or to 
our patriotism. The policy of the petitioners is not that of the fathers 
who made Massachusetts till lately the educational leader among the 
states of the Union. They are hurting the educational prestige of 
New England and helping our rivals. 



REMARKS OF L. CLARK SEELYE, PRESIDENT OF SMITH 

COLLEGE, BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON 

TAXATION, MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE, 

MARCH 13, 1907. 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I discussed this matter fully 
before the Committee on Taxation last year and also before the 
Recess Committee, and I presented then some figures and some ar- 
guments which were reported in a paper, a copy of which, to save 
time, I beg leave to submit to the Committee without reading. 

I wish now to reply briefly to some things that have been said at 
this hearing. After the discussion of this subject before the Legis- 
lative Committee last year it was referred to the Joint Special Com- 
mittee on Taxation. That committee, with only one dissenting 
voice, gave as its conclusion, "that the presence of an educational 
institution imposes no financial burden upon a community which is 
not balanced by adequate compensating benefits." That conclusion 
impartial investigation will confirm. There is not a town or city in 
Massachusetts, which is not compensated by adequate financial bene- 
fits for the existence of a college. The taxes have not been increased 



122 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

thereby, and the taxable ])roperty has been increased, not diminished. 
These communities are just as desirable places for business or for 
residence. There has not been a single fact yet presented to show 
that in any way these colleges have diminished the financial prosperity 
of the cities or towns where they are located. They have made them 
more prosperous. 

The single point which has been referred to here again and again 
is the large ratio of this exempted property to the taxable property 
of the city. Whence came the bulk of this exempted property ? 
Take Northampton, for instance. $365,000 came first from Miss 
Sophia Smith of Hatfield. With that $365,000 the Trustees of Smith 
College bought a site. That site which they bought had been as- 
sessed by the assessors of Northampton for $19,000. To secure it the 
Trustees of Smith College were forced to pay $50,000 out of the 
money which was received from Miss Sophia Smith. Where did 
that $50,000 go? Into the pockets of the people of Northampton 
All the ])roperty which Smith College has received since can be ac- 
counted for in a similar way. By far the larger portion of it has come 
from persons living in other cities and States. The real estate which 
has been exempted has been paid for to the citizens of Northampton 
out of this money, and what was paid them they reinvested in other 
taxable property. 

Now, Northampton asks that the State should recompense it for 
this so-called Ijurden of exempted property which has been given to 
it by the inhabitants of other towns and cities. Hatfield, which has 
contributed so largely to the Northampton institutions, would be 
asked to pay a tax upon what it has given to Northampton to estab- 
lish a college there, because, forsooth, its gift has become a burden to 
the city. I think the citizens of Hatfield will not see it in that light. 
I think the citizens of other towns also will not see it in that light, 
when they are asked to recompense these more fortunate communi- 
ties; for the experience of Northampton is essentially the same as 
that of other communities where colleges are located. The claim 
that this exempted property is burdensome is, as President Eliot has 
said, purely an imaginary grievance. 

Northampton is indeed burdened by its debt of some $600,000. 
But there is not an item of it which has any relation to the presence 
of Smith College. ^Miat was the main item of this debt ? A foolish 
appropriation of $300,000 by the citizens of Northampton before 



REMARKS OF PRESIDENT SEELYE, 1907 123 

Smith College was located there, to secure the Massachusetts Central 
Railroad. That appropriation with its accumulated interest cost 
Northampton very nearly $600,000. What are the other items ? Ap- 
propriations for an armory, for grade crossings, for schoolhouses, for 
sewers, for water works. The cost of its water supply covers about 
half the debt of Northampton. That item is taking care of itself. 
It will be paid for in a few years out of the water rentals. Smith 
College pays these rentals like other consumers and it helps North- 
ampton pay, therefore, its water debt. What is the next item? 
Sewers. Smith College pays for those the established rates. The 
next large item is for schoolhouses. These schoolliouses were not 
built for the accommodation of Smith College. Should the Trustees 
of the College be taxed for their maintenance when they are providing*, 
without any expense to the city, a higher school of learning and better 
schoolhouses than Northampton provides for itself, and are educating 
freely the daughters of its poorest citizens ? 

There is n't a single item, therefore, in this indebtedness of North- 
ampton which has any relation whatever to the presence of Smith 
College. These debts would have been the same had Smith College 
never existed, and all these the Mayor of Northampton said in. his 
inaugural last year would be paid by the established sinking funds in 
1921. 

Notwithstanding the statements made here this morning, North- 
ampton is one of the most prosperous, one of the most attractive 
towns in this Commonwealth; and could you have been there at the 
celebration of the 250th anniversary, you would have heard a very 
different strain from the lugubrious language you have heard here 
to-day. The speeches then were in laudation of Northampton insti- 
tutions, of its college, of its desirability as a place of residence, and of 
its superior educational advantages. There was n't a note of dis- 
couragement. One of the oldest residents of Northampton — the 
veteran editor of the "Hampshire Gazette" — justly characterized 
this movement on the part of some of its citizens to tax the college as 
"a political move, started for political purposes," and said there 
would be such an uprising among the citizens of Northampton as 
was never seen before in its history, if the college were likely to be 
removed from the city. 

In view of the manifest benefits which have been derived from it, 
I am astonished that men can come up here, and represent to this 



124 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

Coiiiinittee that Smith College is in any Avay adding to the financial 
burdens of Northampton, or depreciating its value as a residence. 
I assure you, gentlemen, after living there for thirty-four years and 
knowing somewhat of the interests of Northampton, as well as of the 
interests of the college, such statements as have been made cannot be 
substantiated by the facts. You have been told that the roads need 
more repairs because they are travelled by Smith College students. 
No extra appropriation was ever made on that account, and no new 
road has been laid out for the benefit of Smith College. The girls 
need no extra police from the city. The college pays for its own 
police force. It pays also for its sidewalks, and often a larger sum 
than other abutters. 

I was amused to see that map of Senator Feiker's in which he pic- 
tured the location of the college campus. You would have thought 
from that map that Smith College took up the greater ])art of North- 
ampton, while in fact it owns only about 40 acres out of 20,000; that 
is, you must multiply his map 500 times in order to get the relative 
proportion of the college to the area of the city. 

These petitioners, gentlemen, are not consistent. Two years ago, 
with Smith College burdens staring them in the face, they were anx- 
ious to have the new Smith's Agricultural School located there and 
to have it purchase as a site some of the land belonging to the city, 
and the city officials expressed themselves highly gratified when the 
land was sold for that purpose, because of its prospective civic benefit. 
Senator Feiker says the whole of Elm Street ^\here the college is 
located will soon be absorbed by it, but if the value of property rises 
there in the future as it has in the last ten years, the college is not 
likely to be rich enough to buy much more, for the price in its vicinity 
has been enormously increased by its i)resence. A small piece of 
property, for instance, opposite the college camjius was assessed for 
about $4,000 the year before the college was located. It is now val- 
ued at about $100,000. When the entire taxable property of the city 
has trebled in value; when its population has doubled; when its 
business interests have largely increased — where is the great neces- 
sity of the Legislature of Massachusetts coming to the aid of North- 
ampton, to enable it to live on account of Smith College ? 

Does this higher education pay? That question the Common- 
wealth has always, thus far, answered affirmatively. While these 
colleges and universities are not established to make money, they 



REMARKS OF PRESIDENT SEELYE, 1907 125 

are to a nation its greatest source of wealth. They enable men to 
understand and control nature's forces. Men are made rich by their 
discoveries. But there is a higher plane to look at this question than 
that of mere finance. 

What have these colleges done for Massachusetts and for the na- 
tion ? Harvard has given four Presidents to the nation, Williams has 
given one. They have given us more governors than I can enumerate. 
Our colonial life was fashioned by the graduates of these colleges. 
They shaped the Constitution of the Commonwealth and of the Fed- 
eral Union. They have given us our great jurists — the most emi- 
nent men in all our learned professions. Will you go back on that 
record because of this talk about these petty profits which may come 
occasionally from dormitories, when, as President Eliot has well said, 
no profits can ever come to an institution which uses all its income 
for the public good. Will you now degrade these higher institutions 
of learning on which Massachusetts depends for its prosperity and 
glory? 

Ah, but it is said we are educating at the expense of the Common- 
wealth students from other States! Do you regret educating the 
present Chief Magistrate of the nation because he came from the 
State of New York? Is it not to the glory of Massachusetts that 
President Roosevelt is a graduate of Harvard College, and that other 
Presidents have graduated there? I think, gentlemen, it is time to 
look at this question on a little higher plane than that from which it 
has been considered by the petitioners. It is well to consider its 
moral bearing. A breach of trust on the part of the inhabitants of 
Northampton is involved in this plea that the college shall be taxed. 
Without a dissenting voice they voted to receive this money from 
Sophia Smith to found a college there, with the distinct understand- 
ing that the college would be exempt from taxation. They have 
accepted all the gifts which have been made to Smith College since 
then without a protest. Are they now to be allowed to put their 
hands into the college treasury and take these trust funds which were 
given to them solely for an educational purpose, to help them pay for 
their roads, their bridges, their schools, their ordinary expenses and 
their various subordinate officials ? The moral sense of the commu- 
nity ought to revolt against the suggestion. 

Nor is it merely the amount which would be taken from these in- 
stitutions by the proposed taxation which should be considered. It 



126 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

is the amount which would be taken from them by inducing philan- 
thropic men to say: "If you tax that property for civic purposes you 
shall have no more gifts from us." These bills, if enacted, will de- 
stroy the principal sources from which these colleges are fed. 

Gentlemen, I did not intend to speak so long nor to speak with so 
much feeling, but after giving most of my life to the service of Smith 
College, and knowing how much benefit it has been to the city where 
it is located, I confess to a little indignation when I see some of the 
citizens of Northampton ccming here and claiming these educational 
institutions are a burden, and should be taxed, because they want a 
few more dollars to pay taxes which they are abundantly able to pay 
themselves 

Memorandum — Smith College, Northampton, April 19, 1907: 

Smith College has fourteen dwelling-houses, and in these houses 
the lady who occupies the position of house-mother and an assistant 
teacher reside; and their presence is so essential to the well-being 
of all members of the household, that if they were obliged to reside 
elsewhere it would seriously lessen the educational value of these 
houses. Should the Senate Bill Xo. 290 be enacted and literally en- 
forced, all these houses might be subject to taxation. 

Smith College has no separate dwelling-houses for its teachers or 
officers exempt from taxation, except the one occupied by the Presi- 
dent and his family. Experience has shown that it adds much to 
the educational efficiency of the college when the President resides in 
the midst of the community which he directs, where he can be readily 
consulted at all times when his counsel is needed, and where he can 
become most familiar with the condition of those over whom he i)re- 
sides. 

We object to the Senate Bill No. 290 not only because it violates 
the established educational policy of INIassachusetts, but also because 
it is so ambiguous in its phraseology that it would be likely to inflict 
u])on the colleges — especially the colleges for women — a much 
greater injury than its advocates intend. 

L. CLARK SEELYE, 

President of Smith College. 



REMONSTRANCE OF MASSACHUSETTS COLLEGES. 

1907. 



127 



REMONSTRANCE OF MASSACHUSETTS COLLEGES. 

1907. 



At a meeting of the representatives of universities, colleges, scien- 
tific establishments and seminaries, in the Commonwealth of Massa- 
chusetts, held at Boston on the seventeenth of April, 1907, it was 
unanimously voted that a copy of the following remonstrance be 
sent to each member of the Legislature: 

To THE Members of the Senate and House of Representa- 
tives of THE Commonwealth of Massachusetts: — 

We, the undersigned, officers of Massachusetts universities, colleges, 
and scientific establishments which grant degrees, respectfully repre- 
sent that the passage of Senate Bill No. 290 would be injurious to the 
most precious interests of the Commonwealth; because it would 
inevitably impair the confidence of the American public in the perma- 
nence of the Massachusetts policy of promoting education, religion, 
and charity by encouraging endowments and exempting them from 
taxation. 

This policy has been steadily pursued since the foundation of the 
Commonwealth, and its results in serviceable institutions completely 
demonstrate its wisdom. 

It is now proposed to depart from this policy, though only in one 
detail — the exemption of real estate belonging to institutions of the 
higher education and occupied by their officers of instruction, admin- 
istration, or government. 

The evil efi'ects of such a modification of the exemption statute 
cannot be measured by the amount of money which would be diverted 
from educational uses at the institutions affected. That "amount 
and the consequent injury to educational efficiency would be different 
at the different institutions ^^'e represent. In some the service ren- 
dered by the president or professor at his residence is as indispensable 
to the carrying on of the institution as the service rendered in the 
class-room or office; in others the use of houses for purposes of resi- 
dence could easily be abandoned, and the houses converted into con- 
ference rooms, libraries, or laboratories; other institutions have no 

129 



130 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

real estate covered by the terms of the Bill and would therefore sutler 
no immediate loss. But all these institutions are firmly united in 
this I'emonstranee, seeing clearly that their common service to higher 
education is endangered by the threatened impairment of public 
confidence in the fidelity of Massachusetts to its own great traditions. 

On the other hand, the pecuniary proceeds of the Bill would be 
absolutely insignificant as resources for ordinary town or city expenses; 
and so far as they crij^pled the institutions affected they would harm 
and not help the real pecuniary interests of the towns or cities in 
which the institutions are situated. The prosperity of the exempted 
institutions and that of the towns or cities which harbor them are not 
divisible or distinct. They are one. 

In short, the Bill is capable of doing much harm but no good. 

CHARLES W. ELIOT, President of Harvard University, Cambridge. 

CHARLES G. WASHBURN, President of Trustees of Pohjtechnic Insti- 
tute, Worcester. 

JOHN J. WILLIAMS, Archbishop of Boston. 

HENRY LEFAVOUR, President of Simmons College, Boston. 

MARY E. WOOLLEY, President of Mt. Holyoke College, South Hadley. 

EZRA H. BAKER, Treasurer of Radcliffe College, Cambridge. 

ELLEN F. PENDLETON, Acting President of Wellesley College, Welles- 
ley. 

THOMAS E. MURPHY, S. J., President of Holy Cross College, Worcester. 

WILLIAM E. HUNTINGTON, President of Boston University, Boston. 

THOMAS I. GASSON, S. J., President of Boston College, Boston. 

HENRY HOPKINS, President of Williams College, Williamstoum. 

ALFRED E. STEARNS, Principal of Phillips Academy and President 
of the Theological Seminary, Andover. 

GEORGE HARRIS, President of Amherst College, Amherst. 

HENRY S. PRITCHETT, President of the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology, Boston. 

GEORGE HODGES, Dean of the Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge. 

THEODORE F. WRIGHT, Dean of the New Church Theological School, 
Cambridge. 

NATHAN E. WOOD, President of the Newton Theological Institute, 
Newton. 

L. CLARK SEELYE, President of Smith College, Northampton. 

SAMUEL H. LEE, President of American International College, Sjwing- 
field. 

M. F. DICKINSON, President of the Board of Trustees of Williston Semi- 
nary, Easthampton. 

FREDERICK W. HAMILTON, President of Tufts College, College Hill. 

G. STANLEY HALL, President of Clark University, Worcester. 
Boston, April 17, 1907. 



\ 



LETTERS TO THE LEGISLATURE 131 

LETTERS TO MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE. 

Boston, April 17, 1907. 
To the Honorable Senate : — 

The attention of Senators is called to the fact that Senate Bill 290, 
relating to taxation of college property, which comes up for discussion 
in the Senate, April 18, is a departure from the long settled policy of 
this Commonwealth. College authorities and friends of education 
throughout the State believe that the passage of the bill would cer- 
tainly inflict very great injury upon these institutions. It provides 
for the taxation of "such. real estate belonging to any college or uni- 
versity or scientific institution authorized to grant degrees as is occu- 
pied as a residence by an officer of instruction, administration or 
government of such college, university or scientific institution." 

How Mt. Holyoke College would be affected by this legislation is 
stated by Miss Mary E. Woolley, President of that institution. 

"Number of students this year, 735. 

"Teaching staff, 110. 

"We have seven large dormitories, each accommodating from sixty- 
five to one hundred and twenty-five occupants. 

"From seven eighths to eight ninths of our students, and nearly two 
thirds of our teaching-staff, are in dormitories. 

"These buildings serve three purposes, — those of recitation rooms, 
living rooms and dining rooms. 

"I myself reside in one of the dormitories and have no other resi- 
dence. The same is true of the great body of our teachers." 

If the bill should become a law, every one of these dormitories 
would be taxed. 

The same conditions apply in greater or less degree to Smith Col- 
lege, Radcliffe College, Simmons College and the other educational 
institutions for women; and to a less degree to most of the men's 
colleges. For example, the numerous college dormitories at Harvard 
are provided with Proctors, who look out for the good order of stu- 
dents in the buildings. All these Proctors are either Instructors, 
Professors or Assistant Professors. Other colleges generally have 
administrative officers living in their dormitories. 

G. Stanley Hall, LIv. D., President of Clark University, Worcester, 
who lives in a detached house on land belonging to the University, 
writes upon presidents' houses as follows : — 



132 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

"Every Monday night during term time, for seventeen years 
I have had from twenty to fifty men in my parlor, from seven 
to half past ten or eleven o'clock. Four afternoons every week 
I meet my students there, one each half hour. My library 
supplements that of the University, and any student can come in 
any time and take a book, leaving his card. I have sometimes 
had one hundred and fifty out at once. Add to that the fact that 
as we have no good hotel near, my house has been a hotel for 
almost every visitor, to say nothing of socials and receptions, 
and that, though I have an office across the road, much of the 
office work is done at my house, — all this makes it preposterous 
to consider the house I live in as a private residence. My library, 
particularly, is open any time to students, who can come in often 
without ringing and help themselves, and this destroys the privacy 
of the lower floor." 

President Hall's experience is not exceptional, but only fairly illus- 
trative of the educational uses to which the residences of college pres- 
idents are put. And so in less degree of professors' houses standing 
on college land. Every director of an observatory must live close by 
the observatory itself; for he is liable to be called there at any hour 
of the night. Besides, the bill in its }>resent form is broad enough 
to include even observatories themselves in cases where that build- 
ing and the director's residence happen to be under the same roof or 
are joined together in one group. 

M. F. DICKINSON, for 

Amherst College, 

Smith College, 

Mt. Holyoke College. 



Harvard University, 

Cambridge, April IG, 1907. 
Dear Sir: — 

I am informed that during the consideration of the bill for the 
taxation of certain college property, as finally rejiorted by the Joint 
Committee on Taxation, weight was attached to the allegation that 
Harvard. University would not be much afl^ected by the taxation of 
professors' houses, and was therefore not seriously opposed to such 
taxation. I beg to correct this construction of my remarks on that 
subject. 



LETTERS TO THE LEGISLATURE 133 

At the hearing given by the Recess Committee on October 23, 1906, 
I said: — 

"In some places this issue is a very small one to-day; in others 
it is vital. You need not hesitate, gentlemen, out of consideration 
for Harvard College, to force the Corporation to dispose of the 
five or six professors' houses they still own. They are burden- 
some pieces of property, and are no longer needed for professors. 
They are desirable, however, for a few deans or other admin- 
istrative officers. A house for the President still seems a necessity 
at Harvard, as at other similar institutions. I may add that, 
seeing this necessity, the poor Province of Massachusetts, in 
1726, paid more than half the cost of building a handsome presi- 
dent's house at Cambridge. Are we going back on that, gentle- 
men? Is there a man here who would be willing to go back in 
these prosperous days on that act of the Province of Massachu- 
setts in the time of its poverty?" 

Again, at the hearing on March 13, 1907, referring to the proposal 
to tax professors' houses and dormitories in Cambridge : — 

"Such legislation would not ruin Harvard University; it would 
simply divert $19,000 a year, or four professors' salaries, from 
teaching purposes to the ordinary Cambridge objects of municipal 
expenditure; but so far as it w^ent it Avould be nothing but an 
injury to Harvard University, and whoever advocates it is advo- 
cating the diversion of money heretofore used for educational 
purposes to lower public uses, namely, city expenses. So far 
forth, he is impairing the Massachusetts faith in education as 
the supreme public interest." 

The fact that Harvard University may have less to lose from the 
immediate effects of the present bill than Boston College, Tufts Col- 
lege, or Wellesley College, is not relevant. The interest of Harvard 
University is inseparable from that of all the other colleges and uni- 
versities in Massachusetts on the fundamental question whether the 
Commonwealth shall abandon its traditional policy in support of 
higher education. 

The general fact that every town or city that harbors a college 
receives a material compensation for the exemption of the college 
from taxation, in the form of higher neighboring valuations, hardly 
needs further argument. It was proved beyond the shadow of a 
doubt by the figures submitted to the Recess Committee on Taxa- 
tion, and to the Committee of the present Legislature. If there were 
any evidence that college-owned houses used as residences for pro- 



134 EXE.Ml'TlO.v lUO.M TAXATION' 

fessors menaced the operation of this rule of compensation, there 
might be some justification for the present bill. In the absence of 
such evidence, the bill can be regarded only in one light, namely, 
as an attempt to weaken the foundations of the exemption policy. 
The fact that the bill works but slight harm to certain institutions 
is no argument in its favor. It attacks the vitals of other institutions, 
and, as an entering wedge, it threatens the serviceableness of every 
endowed college, university, and scientific institution in the State. 

Very truly yours, 

CHARLES W. ELIOT. 



THE TAXATION OF PROPERTY OF EDUCATIONAL 
INSTITUTIONS. 



135 



THE TAXATION OF PROPERTY OF EDUCATIONAL 
INSTITUTIONS. 



The bill taxing the property of colleges, universities and scientific 
institutions ought not to pass because 

1. It is a tax on education. 

The property described in the bill, so far as it is now legally 
exempt, is exempt only for the reason that its use is indispen- 
sable to, or closely identified with, the educational purposes of 
the several institutions. 

The effect of the bill is to. diminish the financial resources of 
the institutions affected, by taking funds now applied to the 
public use of education and applying them to other public uses, 
namely, the running expenses of towns and cities. 

2. If any abuse exists at present through the exemption of property 
owned by educational institutions, but put to purely private uses, a 
complete remedy is provided by the existing law. 

The property described in the bill is already taxable in any 
case in which it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Court 
that the use made of the residence is private and not associated 
with the educational purposes of the institution. Mere occupa- 
tion by a professor of a house that happens to be owned by a 
college does not carry exemption. (See WiUiams College vs. 
Williamstown, 167 Mass, 505.) 

3. The occupation of dwelUng-houses on the college grounds or 
campus by professors and administrative officers promotes the edu- 
cational purposes of the several institutions. 

It is universally agreed, that it is highly advantageous for any 
college to have the daily life of its teachers associated as closely 

137 



138 EXEMPTION FROM T.\XATION 

as possible with that of its students, and that the maintenance 
of professors' houses on college grounds promotes that associa- 
tion. It is a matter of common regret that, as an incident to 
the growth of the colleges in number of teachers and students, 
there has been an unavoidable decrease in this association; for 
a majority of the teachers in most colleges must now live in 
private, tax-paying houses. The more reason exists for retain- 
ing the few houses that remain on college grounds. 

In nearly every college in the state the residence of the presi- 
dent on the college grounds is as essential to the proper per- 
formance of his duties as his use of his office. The same principle 
applies to many other administrative officers. 

4. A liberal construction of the Statute, as regards the educational 
use of exempt dwelUngs, has had the repeated sanction of the Supreme 
Court. 

"The Statute is not to be construed narrowly, but in a fair 
and liberal sense, and so as to promote that spirit of learning, 
charity and benevolence, which it has always been one of the 
fundamental objects of the people of this state to encourage." 
(175 Mass. at p. 125.) 

5. The bill violates the tradition and the approved policy of Massa- 
chusetts and of the whole nation. 

It withdraws a privilege sanctioned by Massachusetts law 
and custom of nearly three centuries' duration. 

The encouragement of education has been a prominent char- 
acteristic of the American people from the earliest times. There 
have been two methods of encouragement: (1) the exemption 
of property devoted to educational purposes; (2) direct aid or 
support. In a majority of the states both methods are used. 

6. The abandonment of this time-honored policy can be justified, 
if at all, on only two grounds: first, that the policy has failed as a 
means of promoting education; or, second, that it imposes an intoler- 
able burden. 

The leadership of Massachusetts in education and the service- 



STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGES 139 

ableness of its colleges and universities cannot be seriously 
questioned by any intelligent citizen. These are not matters 
of dispute. 

The exemption of college property from taxation has placed 
no burden on the towns and cities in which it is situated. Their 
tax rates are no higher and their percentage of taxable property 
no lower than those of other cities or towns of the same size or 
locality which contain no exempt college property, j (See figures 
in appendix to President Eliot's remarks before the Recess 
Committee, October 23, 1906.) The repeated demonstrations 
of these two facts are unassailable. 

7. The policy of exemption is supported not only by tradition, 
but also by recent expert judgment and by public opinion. 

Three special committees of the Legislature have reported 
against bills to tax college property, declaring that exemption 
has placed no burden on college towns and cities and that the 
present law ought not to be changed (1874; 1897; 1906). 

The representatives of all the institutions of higher education 
in Massachusetts, some of which would incur no new liability to 
taxation under the proposed law, have solemnly and earnestly 
protested against it as a menace to the cause of education. 
These men and women are disinterested in the best sense of 
the word and the people of Massachusetts know it. 

The newspapers of Massachusetts without respect to local 
or political differences reflect a strong public opinion against 
the bill. Witness the articles in the editorial columns of the 
Boston Post, Traveler, Herald, Journal, Advertiser, and Tran- 
script of April 18, of the Springfield Republican of April 19, and 
of the Boston Traveler, Herald, and Transcript of x\pril 23. 

8. The present bill is a step backward; a reversal of a policy 
maintained since the fomiding of the Commonwealth. As such it 
threatens the stabiUty and service ableness of ail endowed institutions 
of education, religion, and charity, for it impairs the confidence of 
benefactors in the traditional favor and protection of the state. 

In the states which support universities by public taxation. 



140 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

the appropriations for the support of higher echication tend to 
mount witli the property vahiations in their rapidly growing 
communities. The states which rely on private endowments 
for the support of higher education must dei)end on the steady 
sj^-eam of ])rivate benefactions — benefactions coming in large 
measure from other states. (Between six and seven millions of 
dollars are estimated as having come into Massachusetts in this 
way during the last ten years.) That stream is threatened by 
the very introduction of the present bill. 

CHARLES G. WASHBURN, Worcester Polytechnic Institute 
THOMAS I. GASSOxV, S. J., Boston College 
DANIEL MERRLAL\N, Williams College. 
MARY E. WOOLLEY, ML Holyohe College. 
FREDERICK W. HAMILTON, Tufts College 

Committee appointed by the Conference of ^Massachusetts Colleges, 
Universities, and Scientific Institutions, held at Boston, April 17, 19U7. 



WHAT THE NEWSPAPERS THINK OF THE BILL TO 
TAX COLLEGE PROPERTY. 



!4l 



WHAT THE NEWSPAPERS THINK OF THE BILL TO TAX 
COLLEGE PROPERTY. 



BOSTON HERALD EDITORIAL, APRIL IS, 1907. 

The whole Massachusetts people are interested in defeating the 
attempt to curtail college resources by taxing college houses in which 
professors live. No amount of sophistry or demagoguery can make 
this proposition anything else except a scheme to increase the cost of 
obtaining a college education. A young man pays in tuition an aver- 
age of about fifty per cent, of what the instruction costs the institution, 
and less than this when he has a scholarship. This low cost is made 
possible by endowments. The form which the public gives to its 
endowment of colleges is an exemption from taxation on property. 
To decrease this public contribution by taxing professors' houses is 
to diminish the sums applicable to raising the standard of efficiency 
and to reducing the tuition .... 

The Commonwealth might better pay a bounty for every graduate 
of a standard college than enter upon a policy of looting college 
treasuries. What citizen of JNIassachusetts can say he never received 
a benefit from the v^ork of those who were given college education 
under the present system ? Streets and parks are laid out, bridges 
constructed, buildings planned, sanitation developed, schools taught, 
and books written by graduates of colleges. He who makes it harder 
to get a college education retards the development of knowledge 
which benefits every citizen. 

BOSTON HERALD EDITORIAL, APRIL 23, 1907. 

The advocates of taxing college houses occupied by professors 
threw overboard pretty nearly all their ballast yesterday and thus 
contrived to float their balloon safely out of the Senate. A hasty 
computation after the Macleod amendment was made known indi- 



144 EXEMPTION' IROM TAXATION 

cated that the bill as passed in the upper branch exempts entirely 
some institutions, nearly all of whose property would have been taxed 
under the original draft, and that taking the state as a whole only a 
small fraction of the tax at first proposed would be assessed. It is 
probable that the amount of money to be raised will hardly be worth 
what it costs. Practically all the sponsors of the bill have saved is 
their faces. 

The Macleod amendment provides that no college building shall 
be taxed unless more than half of it is occupied by an officer, and that 
of any building only the part so occupied, or its value, shall be assessed. 
This exempts dormitories and practically restricts the application to 
houses used solely as residences, but situated on college property. 

Why abandon an ancient grant to education for a yield so unim- 
portant? The bill reduces the fund available for education. It is 
wrong in principle. It may prove an entering w^edge. The House 
should have the intelligence to reject it. 



BOSTON HERALD EDITORIAL, MAY 2, 1907. 

The bill now before the House to tax a part of the college properties 
should be entitled: "An act to make the higher education more ex- 
pensive and difficult for poor students." 

. Whatever the motive back of the measure, this would be its effect. 
In taxing the college property used for residential purposes by pro- 
fessors or officials of the institutions, it would diminish by so much the 
financial resources of the college. This loss must be made good by 
new gifts, by increased fees or by diminished efficiency in instruction 
and equipment. 

Do the representatives in the popular branch of the Legislature 
desire to meet the issue, in primaries or at the polls, that they voted 
to make college education more costly to the sons and daughters of 
poor men whose laudable ambition is to give to their children the best 
possible mental training? 

Many cities and towns in different states have voted to exempt 
manufacturing establishments from taxation for a long term of years, 
in order to secure the benefit of the occupation and wages which these 
industries would bring to them. Is it in accordance with iMassachu- 
setts traditions and ideas to tax colleges and exempt shoe factories? 



NEWSPAPER COMMENTS 145 

What would Cambridge be without Harvard, or the other college 
towns of the state without their colleges ? 

The committee of these institutions wisely admonished the legis- 
lators that "the present bill is a tax on education — a step backward 
— a reversal of the policy maintained since the founding of the com- 
monwealth." 

Kill it! 

BOSTON JOURNAL EDITORIAL, APRIL 18, 1907. 

It was a very remarkable and significant meeting at the Boston 
rooms of Harvard University yesterday, when representatives of about 
every college and theological school in the State gathered into a sort 
of council of war to plan the fight against the proposition now before 
the Legislature to tax such college property as is used as residences 
by members of the college faculty. The bill was reported in the 
Senate last week, and to the prompt action of President Eliot in calling 
the cohorts together is due this vigorous and impressive protest. 

All barriers of sect and policies are thrown down in this general 
uprising of the higher educators of Massachusetts. Without exception 
they seem to agree that the proposed measure is the entering wedge, 
or the head of the camel in the Arab's tent. If houses occupied by 
college professors, but owned by the college, were to be taxed, there 
would be no rest on the part of those who believe in the practise of 
taxing learning, until other properties would be included and college 
work seriously crippled. "In short," as the protest signed by the 
university men yesterday says, "the bill is capable of doing much harm, 
but no good." 

The amount of money to be gained by a city or town in taxing 
collegiate residences would be small, indeed. In itself it would 
neither help a community nor harm a college. It is the principle 
of the thing and the grave peril of its extension that must be fought. 
Nothing should be permitted, to quote again the language of the 
protest, to "impair the confidence of the American public in the 
permanence of the Massachusetts policy of promoting education, 
religion, and charity by encouraging endowments and exempting 
them from taxation." 



146 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

BOSTON POST EDITORIAL, APRIL 18, 1907. 

One hundred and eighty years ago the Province of Massachusetts 
paid more than half the cost of building a house for the president of 
the university at Cambridge. The Constitution of Massachusetts, 
describing these men of the poor and struggling colony as " our wise 
and pious ancestors," provides that the "officers and servants" of 
the university shall continue to hold and enjoy the privileges conferred 
upon them. 

It is now proposed to rescind the exemption from taxation which 
college property has enjoyed all these years to the extent of subjecting 
to levy such property as is used for residences by officers and in- 
structors in our institutions of learning. This would be a repudiation 
of the policy established for this Commonwealth in its very foundation 
and cherished as a precious tradition. 

A great mistake will be made if this shall be done. It is not a matter 
of mere sentiment. It is a matter of practical, business common 
sense. College property held for gainful investment is properly 
subject to taxation. College property in use for educational purposes 
should remain exempt, as it has been from the beginning, because it 
adds an "unearned increment" to all other property in the community 
in which it is situated. 

This fact is provable and is recognized. And, in designating such 
exempt property, the residences of officers and instructors must be 
included as well as that which is used as lecture rooms or dormitories 
for students. It is all part of the same system ; the line of demarcation 
cannot be drawn, for it does not exist. 

The meeting of the heads of Massachusetts educational institutions 
in Boston yesterday, numbering more than a score, set forth in its 
protest the real sentiment of the people of the Commonwealth. The 
increase of the State revenue by the proposed bill is insignificant; 
the detriment to the higher education and the offence to the moral 
sense of the pubHc would be lamentable. 

BOSTON EVENING RECORD EDITORIAL, APRIL 18, 1907. 

... .It will be a backward step indeed if Massachusetts, at this time 
in her history, reverses her principles, and instead of promoting, 
threatens the serviceableness of every endowed college, university, 
and scientific institution in the State. 



NEWSPAPER COMMENTS 147 

BOSTON EVENING TRANSCRIPT EDITORIAL, APRIL 18, 1907. 

The gathering of representatives of almost every one of the higher 
educational institutions of the State, in this city, to protest formally 
against the bill to tax such college property as is used for residences 
by members of the college faculties, indicates that in that proposed 
legislation they recognized great danger to the educational interests 
of the Commonwealth. The consensus of opinion which was formu- 
lated and unanimously signed gave very strong and valid reasons for 
opposition, but while that was opportune as far as the Legislature 
was concerned, we do not believe it was necessary to convince the 
thinking people of this State that the bill was against the public welfare. 
It proposes a backward and a downward step. It is a shock to the 
pride that is felt in the educational policy of the past in Massachusetts. 
It is a violation of traditions and practice and a contradiction of the 
high claims we have made on the basis of general enlightenment. 

It serves notice that the "cherishing" policy, which is older in 
inception than the Commonwealth itself, is to be given up. Bad as 
this measure is in itself it does not fully reveal the subtle and sinister 
purpose that lies beyond. Tax the professors' residences where 
college meetings are held, and then when the public have become 
accustomed to it, next include the dormitories, and finally all the 
grounds and buildings of an institution. In fact, the dormitories 
have been named as legitimate- objects of taxation by those behind 
this movement, but discovering that such an attempt would be likely 
to fail, they are now trying to carry only the outer works at present, 
hoping to capture the whole educational citadel later. 

This is not merely humiliating to the pride of the State, but, as Dr. 
Eliot has said, it would be a blow to her educational prestige. She 
could no longer maintain that splendid competition which has so 
distinguished her. Never before has the great West, especially the 
middle section of it, been doing so much for education as it is doing 
to-day. At a recent dinner of the alumni of Michigan University 
at Chicago, President Angell of that institution said: "The greatest 
single characteristic of the people of the Middle West is their passion 
for education," and that he declared was his answer when a visitor 
from a foreign land asked him what Avas the distinguishing feature 
of the people in that part of the country. That passion is being 
encouraged and developed not only by the States, but by all their 



148 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION' 

individual units. A proposition like that before our Legislature 
would be indignantly ruled out of court in any one of those Common- 
wealths. 

This noble passion is as manifest in Massachusetts as in Michigan . 
It is filling to overflowing all our higher institutions. How are we to 
meet it and pi-ovide for it ? By reducing the power to serve it, is the 
answer given by those who would tax our colleges and universities. 
That is the message that they would have Massachusetts, the mother 
of scholars and statesmen, send out to the world. Our institutions 
are not asking for that public generosity which is being extended to 
those of a similar class in the West, though results have justified it 
there. They simply ask that the wise conservatism and "cherishing" 
policy which has given them their present power and distinction shall 
be maintained inviolate. The demands upon our colleges and uni- 
versities are growing greater all the time. We can hardly believe 
it possible that under such circumstances a Massachusetts Legislature 
will declare in favor of a course that will increase their burdens and 
injure their prospects. 



BOSTON EVENING TRANSCRIPT EDITORIAL, APRIL 23, 1907. 

So far as it was able yesterday the Senate put this proud old Com- 
monwealth in the retrogressive class of States, in passing to a third 
reading the bill to tax college property on college grounds, used for 
residential purposes by faculty members. A crude and unmeaning 
amendment was attached to the measure on motion of Senator Macleod 
of ^liddlesex to the effect that no such building should be taxed unless 
more than half of it was used for such residential purposes and that 
no part not thus used should be taxed. That would exempt the 
professor's study, we suppose, and perhaps the closets where the 
preceptorial gowns were hung. The ultimate purpose of this reac- 
tionary measure has been but thinly disguised. This is only the 
first step. The dormitories would come next should this bill pass. 
Already other States are taking notice of this humiliating situation. 
The New York Evening Post recounts the States of the Middle West 
that are increasing taxation for educational purposes, and says : "With 
encouragement of this kind offered in the newer sections of the country, 
it is indeed strange to see fresh obstacles put in the way of the Eastern 



NEWSPAPER COMMENTS 149 

institutions which must continue to depend on private endowment." 
By this action of the Senate the educational prestige of the State is 
menaced as it has never been before. 



BOSTON EVENING TRANSCRIPT EDITORIAL, MAY 3, 1907. 

The House has rarely if ever done a better and more decisive piece 
of work than in its action of yesterday, killing beyond resurrection 
the bill which proposed the first step toward the taxation of general 
college property. It was not simply a defeat; it was a rout. The 
vote in opposition, or rather in condemnation, stood almost ten to 
one. For nearly two years this bill has beena nightmare. The edu- 
cators of the State have been a unit against it; the press has gener- 
ally denounced it, and since the Senate gave it is inexphcable approval 
the opposition has been reenforced by resolutions of religious bodies, 
manufacturing and commercial associations, and the voice of the 
public so far as that covdd be ascertained. The House has saved 
Massachusetts from a great humiliation. It has shown itself, and 
not for the first time this session, more conservative and rational in 
its treatment of a vital public question than the Senate. It has kept 
inviolate a policy that has given the State its great prestige as a leader 
in educational movements and it deserves the thanks of the people 
of this Commonwealth as the guardian of her best traditions and 
highest ideals. 

/ BOSTON TRAVELER EDITORIAL, APRIL 18, 1907. 

The pending bill before the Legislature to tax college property is 
a distinctly dangerous and pernicious measure. The revenue which 
the State Avould derive, if it were passed, would be insignificant. 
If passed, it would open the door to the discussion of the larger question 
of the taxation of church property. The Feiker Bill should be beaten 
so decisively this year that it will not come up again for a long time. 

BOSTON TRAVELER EDITORIAL, APRIL 23, 1907. 

The New York Evening Post waxes sarcastic over the attempt by 
certain interests in Massachusetts to tax the property of educational 



150 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

institutions, and holds that the proposed bill is new evidence of the 
spirit which has been manifested of late years in the college towns 
of New P'.ngland, to tax and oppress certain college property. 

It is, and fairly may be, regarded as a strange phenomenon that 
Massachusetts, the pioneer state in the fostering of public education, 
should take part in a movement like this at a time when the western 
states are treating higher education with unprecedented liberality. 

Michigan, Minnesota, and other western states tax all the property 
in the state to help support their universities, and are voluntarily 
raising their rate of taxation for education. The Wisconsin Legis- 
lature recently raised the university tax to two-fifths of a mill on 
every dollar of assessment. 

As the Post says, with encouragement of this kind offered in the 
newer sections of this country, it is indeed strange to see fresh obstacles 
put in the way of the eastern institutions, which must continue to 
depend on private endowment. 

It is too bad that Senators Feiker and Macleod could not settle 
their private quarrels with the college authorities in their home cities 
without taking up the time of the Legislature to consider such a bill. 

FALL RIVER NEWS EDITORIAL, APRIL 26, 1907. 

The Senate has gone on record in favor of the college taxation bill 
reported by the committee on taxation. This bill proposes merely 
the taxation of college property used for residence purposes. This 
is a mere entering wedge. The amount of property involved is not 
large. Should the bill pass and be approved by the governor it would 
not afford any material relief in the college towns, so small would 
be the total of the property brought under taxation by it in any given 
town. The thing to be gained by the advocates of the bill is to estab- 
lish a precedent in favor of the taxation of property used for educa- 
tional purposes. 

How this measure strikes outsiders appears from the criticism of 
it by the New York Evening Post, which regards it as a very strange 
phenomenon that Massachusetts, "the pioneer state in the fostering 
of public education," should take part in a movement like this when 
Western States are treating higher institutions of learning with un- 
precedented liberality. "Every dollar's worth of property in Mich- 



NEWSPAPER COMMENTS 151 

igan, Minnesota, and other Western States is levied upon annually 
for the support of the state universities." Not only so, these states 
are voluntarily raising their rate of taxation for education. The 
Wisconsin Legislature, for example, recently raised the tax for the 
support of the state university to two-fifths of a mill on every dollar 
of valuation. Noting such facts, the Post remarks: "With the 
encouragement of this kind offered in the newer sections of the coun- 
try, it is indeed strange to see fresh obstacles put in the way of the east- 
ern institutions which must continue to depend on private endowment." 

This criticism of the Post applies, not to the people of Massachusetts, 
and we yet hope not to its legislature, but only to a majority of its 
senators. 

The people have shown no sign of approving such legislation, and 
are not likely to show it. The great body of voters are clearly opposed 
to the levy of taxes on the educational institutions of the state. If 
private beneficence will build and endow such institutions, surely 
the public can afford to stand the burden of exempting them from 
taxation. We hope the house will take this view. 

MEDFORD MERCURY EDITORIAL, APRIL 26, 1907. 

The bill before the legislature for taxing the houses owned by 
educational institutions which are occupied by members of the faculty 
is merely an entering wedge for taxing education on a greater scale. 
If this bill passes, it is only a step to taxing dormitories, and another 
step to taxing all the rest of the buildings and the grounds of the 
colleges and other institutions which have made the various com- 
munities what thev are and which have been the chief glory of the 
commonwealth. 

Education is the corner stone of intelligence and free government. 
Everything which makes it more difficult and expensive for the son 
of a poor man or one of moderate means to obtain an education is 
unwise and against public policy. Moreover, it is a short-sighted 
economy which attempts to place an additional tax on education. 

The passage of the bill by the senate on W^ednesday was a retro- 
grade movement of which several of the members rightly said the 
senate should be heartily ashamed. It is a pleasure, however, to 
know that the senator from this district, Hon. Herbert S. Riley, spoke 
and voted against the bill. 



152 EXE.MPTIOX FROM TAXATION 

The average common sense member of the lowei* house, it is believed, 
will see that it is against public interest and contrary to the welfare 
of the great mass of the people to place any additional obstacles to a 
poor young man securing an education and will promptly bury the 
measure. 

PROVIDEXCE BULLETIN EDITORL^L, APRIL 23, 1907. 

In the Massachusetts Senate yesterday a bill to tax college property 
used for purposes of residence was passed to a third reading. Presi- 
dent Eliot of Harvard and many other college presidents have pro- 
tested against the measure, but to no avail, except to secure a change 
in the act by which dormitories are exempt from taxation. The 
argument of those who are in favor of assessing the houses of the 
presidents and professors which belong to educational institutions is 
that preachers are compelled to pay a tax upon their property and so 
is the Governor of the Commonwealth. An altogether perverted 
spirit is shov.n in this attempt to make college property contribute 
funds to the common treasury. No educational institutions except 
the private schools are engaged in making money. The men and 
women who teach in colleges are most inade((uately paid for the large 
services they perform for the students and indirectly for the public 
and the whole nation. Whatever tends to make life more cramped 
and irksome for professors and teachers, whatever lessens their in- 
come, makes them less useful as workers in one of the highest fields 
of human effort. In many commonwealths thf^ State makes large 
contributions in funds to its educational institutions. ]Maine, which 
in comparison with INIassachusetts is almost ])overty-stricken, last 
year appropriated eighty-five thousand dollars for the support of its 
State university. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which 
possesses the oldest university in the Sew World, is displaying dis- 
tressing ingratitude and pitifully poor judgment in passing to a third 
reading this bill for the taxation of college property. 

SPRINGFIELD REPUBLICAN EDITORIAL, APRIL 19, 1907. 

The colleges in Massachusetts have contributed largely to the 
advantage and glory of the state, and through the gifts of private 



NEWSPAPER COMMENTS 153 

citizens — very occasionally reinforced by a small amount of aid 
from the State — have saved the Commonwealth from having to 
support its own institutions in the higher branches of education. 
Having been so benefited, it is clear that Massachusetts owes special 
consideration to her colleges. It is right and wise in the broad point 
of view to favor them a good deal in the way of taxation. Such has 
been the policy of the past, and no sufficient reason exists for changing 
it. 

It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that the representatives of 
these institutions, under the lead of President Eliot, have decided 
to make an emphatic stand against the movement which would open 
the way to changing the practice of the State. It is strongly held 
that if houses occupied by college professors, but owned by the col- 
leges, should be taxed, there would be no rest on the part of those 
who believe in taxing such institutions until other property should 
be included, and in the end an onerous and most hampering burden 
be created that must seriously cripple the colleges. The amount of 
advantage involved iii the proposed change to any city or town would 
be small in the first instance, and therefore the disposition to increase 
it Avould grow naturally and rapidly. The college people make their 
stand at the point where it is proposed to drive the entering wedge. 

There is power in the proposition that nothing should be permitted- 
to "imperil the confidence of the American public in the permanence 
of the Massachusetts policy of promoting education, religion, and 
charity by encouraging endowments and exempting them from taxa- 
tion." It is to be kept in mind that our colleges appeal far beyond 
the borders of the State. In many cases their largest benefactors are 
resident elsewhere, and it would act as a positive discouragement to 
such giving if these endowments were to be subjected to taxation. 
Every gift which comes from outside the commonwealth helps to 
enlarge our educational facilities and to benefit our people in widely 
increasing measure. I>et it get abroad that the State is disposed to 
deal ungenerously by such gifts, and we shall have done a good deal 
to stop the flow of them. 

The benefit which comes to any community which possesses a 
college is not easily over-estimated. Its presence has a tendency to 
add to the value of local property in a degree out of all proportion to 
the little gain that would come out of the measure of taxation that is 
now being so emphatically challenged by the colleges. From the 



154 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

large point of view the public interest is on the side of the protestants, 
and the stand taken hy the colleges is to be respected on the practical 
side, let alone the higher considerations involved. 

NEW YORK EVENING POST EDITORIAL, APRIL 19, 1907. 

The historic Massachusetts policy of exempting from taxation the 
property of educational institutions is attacked by a bill now pending 
in the Legislature opening to taxation "such real estate ... as is 
occupied as a residence by an officer of instruction, administration, 
or government." This is a bill which would make relatively little 
practical difference to any of the colleges within the State, and to some, 
perhaps none at all; but its very proposal is new evidence of the 
disposition which has been manifested, we believe, in some of the 
smaller college towns of New England to tax certain college property. 
It is a strange phenomenon that Massachusetts, the pioneer State in 
the fostering of pubhc education, should take .part in a movement 
like this at a time when the Western States are treating higher educa- 
tion with unprecedented liberality. While Cambridge and Williams- 
town are begrudging the sum that would accrue to their treasuries 
if certain college property were in private hands, every dollar's worth 
of property in Michigan, Minnesota, and other Western States is 
levied upon annually for the support of the State universities. Not 
only that, but these States are voluntarily raising their rate of taxation 
for education. The Wisconsin Legislature, for instance, recently 
raised the University tax to two-fifths of a mill on every dollar of 
assessment. With encouragement of this kind offered in the newer 
sections of the country, it is indeed strange to see fresh obstacles put 
in the way of the Eastern institutions which must continue to depend 
on private endowment. 

NEW YORK EVENING POST EDITORIAL, MAY 7, 1907. 

In rejecting the bill for taxing residential property belonging to 
colleges and universities, the ^lassachusetts House of Representatives 
has shown itself true to the best traditions of the State. The Senate 
had passed this measure by a small majority, though discussion of 
the merits of the case had alreadv shown that there was no reason 



NEWSPAPER COMMENTS 155 

for supposing that the growth of exempted property was imposing 
upon any town or city a burden which was not more than outweighed 
by the advantages flowing from the presence of an institution of learn- 
ing. Only last summer the whole question was studied by a special 
committee of the Legislature, which came to the conclusion that "the 
financial conditions of all the college towns are as satisfactory as those 
found in the great majority of our communities." The action of the 
Senate, therefore, came as an unpleasant surprise to all friends of 
education. But in the House, the proposal was defeated by a vote of 
142 to 14, after a debate which made it clear that the historic policy 
of the commonwealth is not likely to be changed at the behest of a 
few demagogues and malcontents. That the proposal could even 
be seriously considered was discreditable in itself; but the decisive 
action of the Representatives will go far to rehabilitate Massachusetts 
in the estimation of the other States. 



harper's weekly editorial, may 4 1907. 

The universities and colleges in Massachusetts are up and doing, 
and President Eliot is their leader. Moreover, the newspapers and 
churches of the State are taking a hand in the conflict. The cause 
of the uprising is a favorable report on a bill before the State Legis- 
lature providing for the taxation of the houses of presidents and 
professors of institutions of learning. The tax would be very small. 
To some of the colleges, to Harvard especially, it would be an incon- 
siderable burden; to others it would be greater; but all are standing 
together, for the very little profit which such a tax would bring to the 
several towns indicates to the minds of Dr. Eliot and his associates 
that the bill is intended as but an entering wedge, and that those who 
favor it are intent upon eventually taxing all college property. This 
is also the view taken by the newspapers of the State, notably by the 
Springfield Republican, the Boston Herald, the Boston Journal, the 
Boston Post, and the Boston Transcript. The real interest of the 
incident is to be found in the issue as it is stated by Dr. Eliot. He 
says, and he is followed by the others, that this is a movement to 
revolutionize the historic relation of the State towards higher educa- 
tion. Other States, notably the Western States, support their own 
universities, and the towns in which these universities are situated 



156 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

not only do not desire to tax their property, but willino;ly pay their 
contributions to the support of the State institutions. Massachusetts 
pays i)ractically nothing directly for the support of higher education, 
but aids it by exempting the property of universities and colleges from 
taxation. The Supreme Court of the State has decided that the 
houses sought to be taxed by the pending bill are within the exemption. 
With the exception of some inconsiderable sums given by the State 
in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries especially, higher 
education has been supported by private gifts made largely by the 
citizens of other States. When this money has been given, the State 
has promised through its laws that none of it should be taxed. This 
exemption was the contribution of Massachusetts to higher education. 
To tax college property now would be a reversal of the State's attitude 
towards education, and would imply a refusal to make any contribu- 
tion to a cause which Massachusetts has always been supposed to 
have peculiarly at heart. 



harper's weekly editorial, may 25, 1907. 

As a censorious remark was made in these columns on the fealty 
to ignorance displayed, unexpectedly to the outside world, by the 
^Massachusetts Senate, it is only fair to inform those who did not know 
that the proposition was defeated by the Massachusetts House of 
Representatives by a vote of more than one hundred and forty to 
fourteen. This affair is an illustration of the mental and moral size 
of some legislators of modern times. The people of ^Massachusetts 
do not desire to tax education, but some active and minute minds 
in the few college towns of the State are at the bottom of the ungenerous 
and unintellectual movement. These minds being aggressive and 
busy in politics, a Senator who has one college town in his district 
feels that he can better afford to vote in accordance with the desires 
of the active college town than to express the passivity of the twenty 
or twenty-five non-college towns of his district. On the other hand, 
the mere Representative, not having the fear of those who would 
wring money from the colleges for their own benefit, is free to express 
his own views and the views of his own people. The relief from the 
fear of the burden of taxation is great. It is one of the boasts of New 
England colleges and universities that no young man shall be turned 



NEWSPAPER COMMENTS 157 

away merely because he has no money. This is not only the boast, 
but, in one way or another, it is vindicated. But some poor young- 
men are forced to do so much to pay their way that their pursuit of 
education is greatly hampered. There is no college in New England 
that has sufficient money for the poor men ^\ho desire its teaching. 
A large part of the money given to the college is directed by the donors 
to be used for specific purposes, to construct or maintain buildings 
for designated purposes. What colleges chiefly need in the way of 
money is for better instruction and for larger charities, to the end 
that the time of the poor boy, while he is in college, may be devoted to 
the getting of the education that he seeks. Taxation of college 
properties would maim the teaching and abridge the charities — that 
is, would impair the usefulness of the institutions that are doing most 
for the civihzation of the future. 

LIFE EDITORIAL, MAY 16, 1907. 

The Massachusetts colleges make vehement complaint of the new 
policy of their State in taxing college property. At yet, we beheve, 
the intention is that only the professors' houses, owned by the col- 
leges, shall be taxed, but the colleges object even to that, and argue 
that once taxation of college property begins there is no telling how 
far it. will go. 

It is a curious proceeding for Massachusetts. There is no State 
so famous as she is for her colleges, and no State whose colleges cost 
her less. Not one of them that we recall is supported by taxation. 
All, or nearly all of them, are endowed by the gifts of individuals, 
from which and from the tuition fees of students they derive their 
support. Moreover, the Massachusetts colleges have long been, 
and are constantly being, enriched by the benefactions of citizens of 
other States. It is the more ungracious and surprising of the State 
to tax them. 

Of course, the colleges can stand a certain amount of taxation, and 
will doubtless rather pay than move out of the State. Indeed, the 
amounts of money demanded are said to be as yet not very serious. 
But can Massachusetts afford to demand them? 



158 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 



OPINIONS OF TWO EMINENT CITIZENS. 



REV. EDWARD EVERETT HALE, D.D., CHAPLAIN OF THE UNITED STATES 

SENATE. 

To tlie Editor of the Transcript: — 

I have supposed that Cambridge, Sonierville, Worcester, Amherst, 
Northampton, Wellesley, and WiUiamstown were proud of being 
college towns. It is a very philistine way of showing pride to tax 
every poor boy or girl who comes to. one of our colleges — so that the 
permanent "residents" may have their expenses paid by somebody 
else. But this is the English of it. It is as if Westminster Abbey 
should charge me a shilling when I wanted to worship there. 

To tell the whole truth, it would be a very mean thing. 

I have been away all winter, but I have followed this discussion 
with amazement and regret — regret that the Commonwealth should 
be trying to make a penny out of its colleges, as if they were ice or 
granite. We used to say that those were the only natural products 
which we sold to the outsiders. 

39 Highland Street, Roxbury, April 22, 1907. 



COL. THOMAS WENTWORTH HIGGINSON. 

To the Editor of the Herald:— 

Will you allow me to express the regret I feel at the effort now being 
made for the passage of Senate bill No. 290 through the ^Massachusetts 
Legislature, and the earnest hope I entertain that it will be decisively 
rejected. I write as one unconnected with any college or university, 
though born and bred in a college town and residing permanently 
at my birthplace. Long observation satisfies me that the compensa- 
tion of college teachers is habitually too limited, and the disadvantages 
of the poorer class of students too great to justify an increase of 
these evils by the taxation of such collegiate real estate as is occupied 
by instructors. Such taxation is to my mind most objectionable. I 
have seen too many able men, in years past, turned from the work of 



OPINIONS OF CITIZENS 159 

instruction by the actual needs of their families, and too many students 
who have injured health and perhaps shortened life by extreme absti- 
nence in respect to food. Every lifelong resident of a college town 
has known such instances, and has contributed to relieve such dis- 
tresses. On the other hand the increasing wealth of the community 
sends to every college or university a richer class of students for whom 
are sure to be erected costlier buildings outside the college yard and 
sure to yield to the town or city where they are placed an amount in 
taxes far beyond what could be gained to the public treasury by the 
enforced taxation of a few professors' houses. To press this narrower 
and severer method is, in my humble judgment, to look quite in the 
wrong direction. For one, I am not so anxious to diminish my modest 
tax bill as I am to do fair and even liberal justice to the great institu- 
tion which has been the basis of our city's growth. 

29 Buckingham Street, Cambridge, April 21, 1907 



A BRIEF FOR THE COLLEGES. 



1906 SENATE BILL NO. 106. 

Relative to the Taxation of Certain, Property of Educa- 
tional Institutions. 

Argument in Opposition to the Bill. 

This bill provides for the amendment of clause 3 of Section Y, 
chapter 12, of the Revised Laws substantially by the addition thereto 
of the following words: 

"But no real, property, owned and occupied by any educational, literary 
or scienti^c institution, which is us^d or appropriated, wholly or in part, for 
residential, commercial or mercantile purposes or for dormitories, boarding 
houses, or for the dispensing of food or meals shall be exempt from taxation.' 

Property on. :which Tax would , pall .which is now Exempt. 

This bill if it becoiin^s law would levy a tax on all dormitories occu- 
pied by either students, professors, or instructors; on all dining halls 
maintained by educational institutions; on all residences situated on 
the grounds of any educational institution and occupied by professors 
and instructors and not .rented to them; and on all buildings used 
for students? cooperative stores or similar purposes, such, as nearly 
every educational institution maintains. 

The tax on buildings , used for dormitpries and boarding houses 
or halls would, i of course, be the heaviest burden on most of our edu- 
cational institutions. As regards our colleges, these dormitories and 
dining halls have been constructed in the majority of cases to aid the 
poorer students, and in all cases in order to enable these institutions 
to carry on their work tP the , best advantage. They have not been 
erected as investments, but (1) io. provide necessary accommodations 

]6l 



162 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

for their students; (2) to j^rovide such aceommodations at low prices 
for the poorer students; (3) in many cases to keep the body of the 
students together for purposes of discipline and training. Moreover, 
having been erected, the money spent on them on the understanding 
that they would not be taxed, cannot now be productively invested 
elsewhere. 

As regards the academies and schools, such dormitories and dining 
halls are essential. Young boys and girls of immature age who leave 
home to attend these institutions usually cannot board and room 
outside the institutions because they cannot in such, case be kept in 
proper control, and because in many instances there is an actual lack 
of suitable accommodations. 

Advantages to City or Town from being the site of a College 
OR Educational Institution. 

The advocates of this Bill state that it is unjust to the towns in which 
colleges or educational institutions are situated that the real estate of 
such institutions used for educational purposes should be exempt 
from taxation. These advocates especially represent the injustice 
to those cities or towns in which the larger colleges or academies 
having large amounts of exempt property are situated. 

But the assessors' figures show that such cities and towns are as 
well if not better off than other cities and towns in the Commonwealth. 

The figures on which the following calculations are based are taken 
from Public Document No. 19, entitled "Aggregates of Polls, Property, 
Taxes, etc., as assessed May 1st, 1905." 

For example, the town of Amherst in which Amherst College is 
situated has a tax rate of $16.25 per $1,000. The average tax rate 
on property in Hampshire County in which Amherst is situated is 
$17.04 per $1,000. Amherst has 8.84% of the taxable individuals 
residing in the county, but it has 10.01% of the taxable property in 
the county. It seems clear that the presence of the college in Amherst 
has neither resulted in raising the tax rate above that of other towns 
in the county or in lowering the amount of taxable property below 
that of other towns in the county. On the contrary, Amherst is ap- 
parently enjoying an advantage in both respects. 

Northampton, in the same county, the town in which Smith College 



BRIEF FOR THE COLLEGES 163 

is situated, has a tax rate of S17.00 per $1,000, the average tax in the 
county being $17.04 per $1,000. Northampton has 30.53% of the 
taxable individuals residing in the county, and 35.46% of the taxable 
property in the county. 

Williamstown in which Williams College is situated has a tax rate 
of $18.80 per $1,000. The average tax rate on property in Berkshire 
County in which WiUiamstown is situated is $18.03 per $1,000. But 
Williamstown has 4.17% of the taxable individuals residing in the 
county and 4.44% of the taxable property in the county. 

Cambridge in which Harvard University is situated has a tax rate 
of $19.00 per $1,000. The average tax on property in Middlesex 
County in which Cambridge is situated is $18.34 per $1,000. But 
Cambridge has 15.17% of the taxable individuals residing in the 
county and 18.21% of the taxable property in the county. 

Andover, which has three educational institutions, — Phillips 
Academy, Abbot Academy and the Andover Theological School, has 
a tax rate of $16.00 per $1,000. The average tax rate on property 
in Essex County in which Andover is situated is $16.80 per $1,000. 
Andover has 1.57% of the taxable individuals residing in the county 
and 1.92% of the taxable property in the county. 

Not only do the assessors' figures show that such cities and towns 
are on the whole as well if not better off than other cities and towns 
in the same counties, but it may be shown affirmatively that an edu- 
cational institution is as a matter of fact a great benefit to the city or 
town in which it is situated. 

Take Harvard University as an example. As it is the largest edu- 
cational institution in the state it would presumably work the greatest 
harm or benefit to the community in which it was situated. There 
are at present 5283 students in Harvard and Radcliffe. It may safely 
be assumed that each of these students spends $750 and that the 
University spends $150 above the amount received in tuition for each 
student, making a total expenditure of $900 per student; so that 
there is being expended during the present year in this way, $4,754,700. 
If the college grows during the next ten years at the rate it has increased 
during the past ten years, there will be in Cambridge in ten years, 
7,660 students who will spend $6,894,000, an increase of over 
$2 000,000. By far the greater part of this money is spent directly 
in Cambridge in wages to employees, in food, in the rental of rooms 
and in purchases from the tradesmen of the city. 



164 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

Harvard itself spent last year in salaries to professors and instructors 
and in wages to various employees, $805,121.66. Of this sum 
$168,797.64 was ])aid for services of janitors, watchmen, and care- 
takers in the dormitories. Practically all of this money went to 
persons resident in Cambridge, who in turn spent at least the larger 
part of it in the city of Cambridge, and who occupy houses rented 
and taxed in the city. There is in addition a large expenditure in 
Cambridge by ])ersons who come to reside near the college, either to 
educate their children or because of the society which the college 
affords. These people are also taxed by the city. In addition there 
is much work on new college buildings which benefits the Cambridge 
citizens. 

That the presence of the college has added to Cambridge an im- 
mense amount of taxable property is clear. Thus the valuation of 
29 private dormitories and other buildings situated in Cambridge 
near the college yard, intended for students' use and owned by private 
persons, according to the assessors' books is $2,519,900, ,on which 
the city receives a tax of $47,878.10. These buildings are used 
exclusively by the students, and none of them \a ould have been erected 
were it not for the presence of the college. In addition there are a 
largie number of smaller dormitories and other buildings which are 
used exclusively by the students, the need and value of which is thereby 
created and maintained; and the college has also created a business 
centre iA and around Harvard Square which has made , property 
situated there extremely valuable. 

Ward 8 in Cambridge, which includes practically all the exempted 
property of the college, includes about the same area as wards 5 and 7. 
The latter two wards include part of Central Square and part of the 
principal business district of the city and are nearer Boston. Yet the 
taxable value of the land in ward 8 excluding the exein})ted property 
belonging to the college according to the assessors' books is $6,099,100, 
while the taxable value of the lands in wards 5 and 7 is only $5,678,300. 
The total taxable value of both land, buildings, and personalty in 
ward 8 is $14,665,800, while the total in wards 5 and 7 is but 
$17,877,550. 

It is safe to say that more than half the taxable value in ward 8 is 
due to the presence of the' college and of business and industries for 
which it is directly responsible. If the college were not situated there, 
the business district would end shortly beyond Central Square, the 



BRIEF FOR THE COLLEGES 165 

value of land in ward 8 -would be about a quarter of what it now is, 
and beyond a few apartnaent houses, there would be no taxable build- 
ings of any. great value. - . , 

Moreover, ward 8 contains only 2,371 taxable polls out of a total 
in the city of ,26,696, or 8.91 per ceiit. of the total, yet it contains 
taxable property to the amount of $14,665,800, out of a total in the 
city of 1103,845,600 or 14.12 per cent. 

In yet another way is Cambridge benefited. In the year 1904- 
1905, out of 4136 students in the college, in regular term time, 301 
gave Cambridge as their home residence, and 48 more giving, Cam- 
bridge as their home residence were entered in the Summer School; 
that is, 349 Cambridge young people were being educated at the 
university. Many of them would doubtless have been unable to 
leave home to attend a university because of the expense or for other 
reasons, and all who lived at home effected a saving of at least S250 
each, which would mean a gain to the citizens in the case of 301 
students attendant during regular term time alone of $75,250. Har- 
vard is) also spending annually for the benefit of each of its students 
at least $150. more than it receives froni the student as a tuition fee. 
The college is thus, spending fo,r the benefit of ,these 301 Cambridge 
students a,lone, at least $45,150 more than it receives from them. 

It i3 moreover not true, even apart from the fact that the college 
brings new business to a city or town and increases the value of other 
taxable land, that exempted land necessarily involves a real loss to 
the city or town in which it is situated. In all the towns in which 
colleges are situated there is other vacant land which, could be used 
for business or residential purposes. If any person, desires to start 
a business or to build a house in any of these towns or cities there is 
ample room. If Boston should convert the Public Garden into a 
business district it might make a profit out of selling the land, but it 
would not increase the total taxable property in the city, since buildings 
which are now being erected on Boylston Street and which make the 
land more valuable there and are taxable there would in such case be 
situated on the Public Garden. The total result to the city would 
not be an increase in taxable values. Indeed it would almost cer- 
tainly be less, as the land now fronting on the Public Garden is far 
more valuable for that very reason. Where the exemption of property, 
as in the case of a college, results in bringing new business and the 
expenditure of an immense amount of money to the city or town, it 



166 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

is clearly an advantage to the city or town in the mere matter of taxable 
values. 

Moreover, a college practically maintains an open park at no ex- 
pense to the city, and yet a park which benefits all the citizens. Its 
museums and many of its lectures are frecjuented by the public and it 
gives the town or city in which it is situated prominence and distinction. 

The fact that a college is an advantage to a town or city is shown 
by the Avell known anxiety of towns or cities to have a college situated 
within their limits. The town of Amherst paid $50,000 to have the 
Massachusetts Agricultural College situated in the town, and the 
first building of Amherst College was erected in large measure by the 
free service and materials furnished by the inhabitants of the town 
and the surrounding towns. 

This Tax would pall most heavily on Poor Boys. 

A tax such as proposed would either result in an increase of the 
rents for dormitory rooms and of the price charged for board, or in 
less effective work by the institutions, and it would probably result 
in both. Any increase in the rent charged for dormitory rooms or in 
the price of board given at educational institutions would fall most 
heavily on the students which the state should especially |)rotect. 
The sons of rich men could afford to pay more for their rooms or their 
board, but many of the poor boys could not. In most of our colleges 
the richer men live in private houses or dormitories which are not 
college property and are taxed, while the poorer boys live in the col- 
lege dormitories, the rooms there being rented at lower rates, largely 
because they are not taxed. The same is true of the boarding ])laces 
maintained by these institutions; for example, — at Harvard Uni- 
versity two boarding places are maintained by the college; one at 
Memorial Hall, and the other at Randall Hall. At Memorial Hall 
during the years 1903 and 1904, 1776 men boarded. Of these the 
majority spent about $4 a week, as the following figures show: 

31 spent less than $3.00 a week total 

139 '• between 3.00 and $3.50 

475 " " 3.50 " 4.00 

538 " " 4.00 " 4.50 

359 " ' 4.50 " 5,00 

142 " " 5.00 " 5.50 

.55 " " 5.50 " 6.00 

37 '' over 6.00 a week on an averaCT> 



BKIEF FOR THE COLLEGES 167 

At Randall Hall the average price paid by students is substantially 
less than that paid at Memorial Hall. The auditor states that a 
large proportion of the students board there for S2.80 per week, and 
all the waiters are college students who cannot afford to pay even 
this amount, and serve as waiters in order to reduce still further the 
cost of their board. 

Students in Massachusetts Colleges and Educational Insti- 
tutions LARGELY PoOR BOYS. 

A large proportion of the students in Massachusetts colleges and 
other educational institutions are poor boys. This can be shown in 
many ways; for example: 

At Harvard College during the past year 873 temporary positions 
were secured for students by the Appointments Office, being almost 
wholly for students needing opportunities to earn their college expenses. 
There is no record of the number of men who got employment in other 
ways, but it is safe to say that there are in that one college a thousand 
young men who are obliged to support themselves in whole or in part. 

There are, further, in Harvard College proper the present year 264 
students who are recipients of scholarships and aids from the college. 
They are all poor men, as no others are granted such aid, and these 
boys alone constitute 14 per cent, of the total college proper enrol- 
ment. In the years 1903 to 1904, a canvas was taken which showed 
that 11 per cent, of the students in Harvard College and the Lawrence 
Scientific School were sons of wage earners. 

At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 202 students at the 
present time are receiving scholarship assistance. Out of a total 
number of 1466 students at Technology during the present year, a 
canvas showed that the fathers of 19.6% are wage earners or farmers. 

Benefit to the State from having Great Educational Insti- 
tutions. 

There can be no question but that the educational institutions of 
Massachusetts have added greatly to the prestige of the state, and 
have contributed materially to its financial resources. 

Immense sums of money are each year spent by students in Massa- 



168 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

chiisett.s who come from other jiiirts of the country. Like the summer 
boarders in Maine, New Hamj)shire and Cape Cod, they constitute 
what might be termed a state industry. Students who flock to its 
colleges, schools and various educational institutions each year from 
other parts of the country must number at least 6,000. If each of 
these students spends S750 it means an expenditure in the state of 
$4,500,000 from this source alone. 

In addition, large numbers of rich people come to this state from 
other parts of the country to educate their children, and thousands 
of others come to Massachusetts each year because of associations 
which they formed while students in its institutions, or because of the 
society which these institutions afford. 

In addition, each year great gifts are made to these institutions from 
persons resident outside of Massachusetts. During the past five 
years not less than $5,050,000 has been brought into the state by the 
gifts of generous persons residing in other states to Harvard Uni- 
versity alone. This money is either used in constructing Oollege 
buildings here which gives employment to Massachusetts men, or 
largely invested in iVIassachusetts ' industries, or through business 
houses having their places of business in the state, and the income of 
the funds invested is entirely spent here. 

In addition there are many professions practised in the State which 
the public welfare requires should be practised by men of the best 
j.ossible professional training which oiily the best colleges can give. 
Any man taken to the City Hospital or the Massachusetts General 
Hospital for a critical operation wishes to have the highest professional 
skill exercised to save his life or relieve his suffering. From the funds 
of Harvard and Tufts many thousands of dollars are annually expended 
to create anil maintain a high degree of medical and surgical efficiency. 

It is further of immense importance to the State that it have the 
best educational institutions in the country. Massachusetts has held 
its position in the country from the earliest days, not from its natural 
resources, but chiefly from the number of highly trained men it has 
each year produced. 

It is every year becoming more important that our boys should be 
trained in order to hold their own in competition with the trained men 
in other states and localities who are each year becoming more numer- 
ous and better trained. This is especially true of poor boys who have 
no capital to start business with. It is harder every year for the ambi- 



BRIEF FOR THE COLLEGES 169 

tious poor boy to get a start in business if he has no special training, 
but easier for him to do so if he has such training. As an example 
of this, the following companies applied directly to the Secretary 
of Appointments at Harvard University during the past year for 
trained young men to enter their employ, and some of the larger of 
these companies have practically given standing orders to send them 
any men so trained as to fit them for their business. 

New England Telephone & Telegraph Company, Boston. 
American " << . a , : n u ., ■ 

• Bell , '< " " " of Philadelphia. 

American Steel & Wire Company, Worcester, Mass. 
General Electric Company, West Lynn, Mass. 
Western " " New York. 

Pope Motor Car Company, Indianapolis, Indiana. 
Navy Yard, New York. 

Crocker-Wheeler Company, Ampere, New Jersey. 
. Santa, Fe Fuel Oil Department, Saratoga Field, Galveston, Tex. 
, .H^ipe Safety Boiler Company, 11 Broadway, New York, 
National Carbon Company, Cleveland, Ohio. 
Boston Elevated Railway Company, Boston. 
Allis-Chalmers Compsiny, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. ' ■ 

Marshall Electric Company, Boston. 
Landscape Architects. 
The Gregg Company of New York. 
Pa., N. Y. & L. I. R. R. Co., of New York. 
Emporium Powder Mfg. Company, Emporium, Pa. 
Solvay Process Company, Syracuse, N. Y. 
• Sullivan Machinery Company, Clarement, N. H. 
Eastern Dynamite Works, Barksdale, Wisconsin. 
Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., Baltimore, Md. 
United Printing Machinery Company, Boston. 
De Lamar's Copper Refining Company, Chrome, N. J. 
J. A. & W. Bird & Company, Boston. 
Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, St. Louis. 
Amsrican Diesel Engine Company, New York. 
Diamond Rubber Company, Akron, Ohio. 
Numerous Mine Superintendents. 
L. & J. A. Steward, Rutland, Vermont (Tin cans & Can making 

machinery).' ' ' ' • ■■ 

Stanley Electric Company. 
Manchester Mills, Manchester, N. H. 

L. A. Becker Company, Carbonating Machinery, Chicago. 
Ostheimer Bros., Wireless Telegraphy, New York, Philadelphia and 

Berlin. 



170 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

Edison Electric Company, Boston. 

The M. B. Foster Electric Company, Boston. 

Indianapolis Water Company. 

Minnesota Hemp Company. 

In addition to the above Companies, a large number applied directly 
to the various departments at Harvard for trained men. 

These Companies apply to the institutions which they know give 
the best training, and if ^Massachusetts institutions are not the best, 
their students will lose these opportunities. 

Rich boys could go to other states for their training if Massachusetts 
failed to have the best institutions. But the majority of poor boys 
could not. The travelling expenses in such case, the greater difficulty 
of getting work in a strange place, and the added cost of board, would 
make it impossible for many of them to go. 

^Moreover, Massachusetts has held since Colonial times a high 
reputation in the country as the leader in education, a reputation 
which has given it dignity and power, and which would be greatly 
to its disadvantage to lose. 

It is becoming more difficult each year for Massachusetts to main- 
tain its lead in educational matters. Previously there were few great 
institutions elsewhere, but during the last thirty years, not only have 
there grown up a number of great vmiversities elsewhere, such as 
Columbia, Chicago, Cornell, and Leland Stanford, which have large 
private endowments, but the various states in the country have been 
generously granting large sums each year to their state institutions. 
Harvard is at present the largest university in the country, and Massa- 
chusetts owes considerable of its prestige in educational matters to 
this fact, but as the following table shows, at the rate of growth for the 
past ten years. Harvard in 1915 will be only the fifth college in size 
in the country and considerably smaller than a number of other 
universities. In this table the number of students at the institutions 
named are given for the years 1895-96, and 1905-06, and the esti- 
mated number for 1915-16, if the same proportionate rate of growth 
continues. The students at Radcliffe are included in the figures for 
Harvard. 



BRIEF FOR THE COLLEGES 



171 



Number of Students. 



Number of Students. 







1895-96 






1905-06. 


1. 


Harvard 


3,634 


1. 


Harvard 


5,283 


2. 


Michigan State 


3,000 


2. 


Columbia 


4,755 


3. 


Pennsylvania 


2,500 


3. 


Michigan State 


4,500 


4. 


Northwestern 


2,413 


4. 


Minnesota State 


4,000 


5. 


Yale 


2,400 


5. 


Illinois State 


3,872 


6. 


Minnesota State 


2,400 


6. 


Northwestern 


3,843 


7. 


California State 


2,000 


7. 


Cornell 


3,841 


8. 


Columbia 


1,943 


8. 


Pennsylvania 


3,350 


9. 


Cornell 


1,688 


9. 


Wisconsin State 


3,342 


10. 


Wisconsin State 


1,534 


10. 


Cahfornia State 


3,294 


11 


Princeton 


1,090 


11. 


Yale 


3,239 


12. 


Leland Stanford 


990 


12. 


Leland Stanford 


1.605 


13. 


Illinois State 


900 


13. 


Princeton 
1915-16. 


1.357 




1. 


Illinois State 




16,649 






2. 


Columbia 




11,649 






3. 


Cornell 




8,719 






4. 


Wisconsin State 




8,285 






5. 


Harvard 




7,660 






6. 


Michigan State 




6,750 






7. 


Minnesota State 




6,680 






8. 


Northwestern 




6.110 






9. 


California State 




5,435 






10. 


Pennsylvania 




4,489 






11. 


Yale 




4,372 






12. 


Leland Stanford 




2,600 






13. 


Princeton 




1,696 





The same thing is true of all our smaller colleges. Thus, Boston 
University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Amherst, Smith, 
Tufts, Wellesley, Williams, Worcester Polytechnic Institute and Mount 
Holyoke had 5,896 students altogether in 1894-95, and 8,275 students 
in 1905-06. This is a larger proportionate increase than that of 
Harvard, but a smaller increase than that of the leading colleges 
whose increase is given above, viz: Michigan, Northwestern, Minne- 
sota State, California, California State, Columbia, Illinois State, 
Cornell, Wisconsin State, and Leland Stanford. 

If Massachusetts is to maintain its educational lead, especially in 
competition with the State endowed colleges of the Middle West, 
its educational institutions will require every assistance that can be 
given. The funds of none of the colleges or academies in this state 



172 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

are more than sufficient to meet their actual needs, and they are all 
asking gifts from persons all over the country in order to better their 
\\ork and maintain their relative position. A tax of the nature ])ro- 
])osed would not only l^e a direct and immediate burden to them, but 
it would almost certainly handicap our colleges by deterring many 
persons from making gifts to them. Any person living outside of 
Massachusetts interested in education and disposed to make large 
gifts for educational purposes almost always has arguments in favor 
of other colleges and localities urged upon him, and nothing could 
be more efi'ectively used against our institutions than an apparent 
tendency on the part of jNIassachusetts to levy tribute on such gifts 
instead of following the more liberal policy of nearly all the states 
outside of New England. 

Institutions on which Tax would fall. 

The proposed tax would fall not only on the large colleges, but on a very 
large number of smaller educational institutions in the state. The following 
is a partial list of institutions in Massachusetts which would probably bs 
affected by this proposed law, including both sectarian and non-sectarian 
colleges and schools: 

Harvard College Williams College 

Amherst College Tufts College 

Wellesley College Smith College 

Phillips Academy Andover Theological Seminary 

Episcopal Theological Sem. Abbott Academy 

Middlesex School Dean Academy 

Williston Seminary Groton School 

Milton Academy Tabor Academy 

Mt. Hermon School St. Mark's School. 

Dummer Academy Weslyan Academy 

Worcester Academy St. Catherine's Academy 

St. John's Seminary St. Joseph's Academy 

Notre Dame Academy St, John's Normal School 

Philosophy House St. Anne's Academy 

St. Patrick's Academy Academy of the Assumption 

St. Dominic's Academy Apostolic School 

Chicopee Academy Sisters' Academy 

Academy of our Lady 



brief fok the colleges 173 

Educational Institutions have built Dormitories and Board- 
ing Houses on the implied understanding that they 
would not be Taxed. 

This state has , so long exempted dormitories and dining halls, 
owned by educational institutions from taxation, that this policy has 
made our educational institutions feel that it was safe to accept 
gifts of such buildings Avithout fear of taxation. It would be a grave 
cjuestion if Harvard had known that its Memorial Hall was to be 
taxed whether or not it coiild have -accepted the gift. It would have 
meant devoting the income of several hundred thousand dollars of its 
productive funds to the payment of this tax. The same is true of 
Randall Hall, another large dining hall maintained by the University. 
Also many of the dormitories would not have been built had it been 
thought that they would be taxed. The expenditure on these dormi- 
tories would give a very meagre return to the college, if taxed, and the 
college undoubtedly would have felt itself obliged to use its funds in 
other ways, even at the expense of its poor students. The colleges 
and other educational institutions of Massachusetts have accepted 
gifts in such form and their benefactors have given them gifts in such 
form feeling that they would be exempted from taxation. It would 
be a great injustice to apply this tax to such buildings, the result of 
gifts given in the past in full confidence that it was the settled policy 
of the state to exempt such property from taxation. 

The Established Massachusetts Policy. 

The property which it is proposed to tax under this Bill has always 
been exempt from taxation in Massachusetts. Prior to the Revised 
Statutes of Massachusetts passed in 1836, it was customary for the 
legislature each year to provide that such property should be exempt, 
and prior to 1828, not only was such property exempt, but the president, 
professors, librarians and students of Harvard, Williams and Amherst 
Colleges, and of all other theological, medical, and literary institutions, 
ministers of the gospel, preceptors of academies, Latin and grammar 
school masters were exempted from poll taxes and all other taxes on 
this property to a limited amount. 



174 EXEMPTION FROM TAXAT.ON 

By the Revised Statutes passed in 1836 the following general rule 
was adopted: 

That there should be exempted from taxation 

"Secondly, the personal property of all literary, benevolent, charitable and, 
scientific institutions, incorporated within this Commonwealth, and such real 
estate belonging to such institutions as shall be actually occupied by them or 
iiy the officers of such institutions, for the purposes for which they were incor- 
porated." 

This general exemption has remained practically unchanged to the 
present day. 

Not only has the property proposed to be taxed by the present 
Bill been heretofore exempted, but the legislature has until the last 
thirty or forty years made specific grants to the higher institutions of 
learning in the state. In the course of the Colonial and Provincial 
periods the legislature of Massachusetts made no less than 103 distinct 
grants to Harvard College and these grants were continued from time 
to time until 1874. The largest grant of the legislature was made by 
the act of 1814, which provided that ^ of the bank tax amounting 
to $10,000 should be paid annually to the college for a term of ten 
years, yielding in all the sum of $100,000. The state has also con- 
tributed to Amherst and Williams Colleges from time to time. 

What is done' in Other States. 

In practically no other state in the country, except California, are 
such buildings taxed as it is here proposed to tax, and in California 
the state annually grants large sums of money to its State institutions 
of higher learning. Moreover, in nearly every state in the country 
large grants are annually made to colleges and institutions of higher 
learning. The following table taken from the report of the Commis- 
sioner of Education of the Interior Department for the year 1902 shows 
the income from state or municipal appropriations for the years 1901- 
1902 of the following institutions, the appropriations being almost en- 
tirely from the States. 

Alabama. 
University of Alabama $10,000 

Arizona. 
University of Arizona 20,877 

Arkansas. 
University of Arkansas ........ 53,690 



University of CaKfornia . 
University of Colorado 
Delaware College 
Florida State College 
University of Idaho 
University of Illinois 
Indiana University 
State University of Iowa 
University of Kansas 
Louisiana State University 
University of Maine 
Johns Hopkins University 
University of Michigan . 
University of Minnesota 
University of Mississippi 
University of the State of Missouri 
University of Montana . 
University of Nebraska 
Nevada State University 
Dartmouth College 
University of New Mexico 



BRIEF FOR THE COLLEGES. 

California. 

Colorado. 

Delaware. 

Florida. 

Idaho. 

Illinois. 

Indiana. 

Iowa. 

Kansas. 

Louisiana. 

Maine. 

Maryland. 

Michigan. 

Minnesota. 

Mississippi. 

Missouri. 

Montajia 

Nebraska. 

Nevada. 

Neiv Hampshire 

New Mexico. 

New York. 



College of the City of New York 

North Carolina. 
University of North Carohna 



175 

346,754 

80,000 

12,500 

5,000 

11,000 

524,561 

100,000 

188,775 

220,000 

21,003 

15,000 

24,000 

403,525 

406,181 

3,500 

180,221 

35,765 

119,750 

28,340 

15,000 

13,000 

259,681 

37,500 



17C) 



University of Nortli Dakota 



EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION. 

Nortli Dakola. 
Ohio. 



Ohio State University 
Ohio University 
University of Cincinnati 
Miami University . 
Wilberforce University 



University of Oklalionia 

University of Oregon 

Pennsylvania State College 

South Carolina College 

University of South Dakota 

University of Nashville . 

University of Texas 

University of Utah 

University of Vermont . 
Middlebury College 
Norwich University 

University of Virginia 
College of William & Mary 

University of A\ashington"' 

West Virginia University 

University of W'isconsin 

University of Wyoming 
Statistics 1900-1901. 



Oklahotrta. 

Orego?i. 

Pennsylrania 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Tennessee. 

Texas. 

Utah: 

Vermont. 

Virginia. ■ 

Washington. 
West Virginia 
Wisconsin. 
Wyoming. 



50,000 

258,382 
32,. 586 
66,182 
23,732 
30,000 

120,000 
47,760 
43,979 
30,000 
40,000 
20,000 

165,000 

66,436 

6,000 
2,400 
7,200 

60,000 
15,000 

75,000 
1.56,.550 
289,000 

23,855 



According to this table, in eight states the income received from 
such appropriations was over $200,000 as follows 



California 
Illinois 
Kansas . 



346,754 
524,.561 
220.000 



BRIEF FOR THE COLLEGES 177 

Michigan 403,525 

Minnesota 406,181 

New York . ' , . . , . , , . . . 259,681 

Ohio ... 410,882 

"Wisconsin . 289,000 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is not called upon to make 
such appropriations to its institutions of higher education, but instead 
relies upon the generosity of private individuals many of whom reside 
without the borders of the State. Had they not received such gifts 
the state would be obliged, in order to maintain its position, to grant 
its higher mstitutions annual aid. This generosity of private indi- 
viduals therefore has been a great saving to the state. The State 
should not be less liberal than the other states of the Union and dis- 
courage their gifts by a tax on these institutions. 

1907. 



THE EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION OF THE REAL 
ESTATE OF COLLEGES AND OTHER CHARITIES. 



President and Fellows of Harvard College 
Assessors of Cambridge 



On February 24, 1897, the Full Bench of the Supreme Judicial 
Court of M assachusetts rendered its decision in the case of Williams 
College v. Assessors of Williamstown, tvhich is reported in Vol. 167 
Mass. Reports, page 50-5, wherein the Court held that certain lots of 
land, with the dwelling-houses thereon, owned by Williams College and 
occupied hy its professors and other officers, were not exempted froin 
taxation under the laws of this Commonwealth. 

It was because of this decision that the City of Cambridge assessed 
a tax for the year IS 97 upon certain houses and lots belonging to Har- 
vard College and occupied by its president, professors, and students, 
which had never been taxed before, but had always been treated by the 
College and the City of Cambridge as exem.pt from taxation under the 
laws of this Commonwealth. 

The College paid the taxes on this property under protest, and made 
application to the assessors for abatement thereof, and, upon their 
refusal to abate, appealed to the Superior Court. The case ivas sub- 
mitted to Mr. Justice Bell of the Superior Court upon an agreed statement 
of facts lohich is set forth in his report. Judge Bell decided that the 
several properties were exempt from taxation, and by consent of the 
parties reported the case to the Supreme Judicial Court for its decision.. 
The Judge's report is as follows: — 



179 



180 EXEMPTION IKOM TAXATION 

REPORT 

This action is a petition for abatement of certain taxes assessed 
upon certain ])roi)erties of the petitioners as hereinafter appears. 

The petition may be referred to. 

It is not claimed in this case that the taxes are excessive, but tne 
petitioners claimed that the properties are exempt from taxation under 
the provisions of clause three, section five, chapter eleven of the Public 
Statutes, as amended by Statutes of eighteen hundred and eighty- 
nine, chapter four hundred and sixty-five. 

The case was heard before me without a jury upon the following 
agreed statement of facts, and no other evidence was submitted : — 

Agreed Facts 

The following are agreed to be the facts in this case: — 
The appellants are a corporation established under the laws of this 
Commonwealth, and a literary, benevolent, charitable, and scientific 
institution within the meaning of the provisions of Public Statutes, 
chapter 11, section 5, clause 3, as amended by chapter 465 of the Acts 
of 1889. 

On the first day of May, 1897, the appellants were the owners of 
certain property situated in said Cambridge, and were liable to taxa- 
tion therefor; they filed with the assessors of said Cambridge within 
the time specified by them a full and accurate list in due form of all 
their estate which they considered liable to taxation in Cambridge; 
they were also on said first day of May, 1897, the owners of certain 
other property, viz.: real estate, situated in Cambridge, which they 
contend is exempted from taxation under the provisions of Public 
Statutes, chapter 11, section 5, clause 3, as amended by chapter 465 
of the Acts of 1889, because said property, they contend, is occupied 
by the appellants or their officers for the purposes for which they were 
incorporated; that the appellants also filed with said assessors within 
the required time a true list of all real and personal estate held by them 
for literary, benevolent, charitable, and scientific purposes, together 
with a statement of the amount of all receipts and expenditures for 
said purposes during the year next preceding said first day of May. 
The real estate, which the appellants now contend is exempted from 
taxation as aforesaid, is brieflv described as follows: — 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 181 

No. 17 Quincy Street, 

No. 17 Kirkland Street, 

No. 11 Quincy Street, 

No. 16 Quincy Street, 

No. 25 Quincy Street, 

No. 37 Quincy Street, ^ 

No. 38 Quincy Street, 

No. 11 Frisbie Place. 

The assessors of Cambridge assessed a tax for the year 1897 upon 
this real estate amounting to $2817.50, and a tax bill demanding 
payment of the same, and dated September 1, 1897, was received 
by the appellants, who paid said tax under written protest on October 
7, 1897. Within six months after the date of said tax bill the appellants 
applied to the assessors for an abatement of said tax. 

On January 21, 1898, the assessors in writing notified the appellants 
that they refused to abate said tax or any part of it. 

On February 12, 1898, the appellants gave notice that they appealed 
from said decision, and on March 7, 1898, which was the first return 
day occurring after thirty days from the date of the assessors' said 
notice, the appellants entered their appeal in this court. 

The several houses and lots of land in question in this case, with 
the specific assessments on each in the year 1897, and the mode of its 
occupation, are as follows : — 

1. 17 Quincy Street, 

32,000 feet of land assessed at $19,000 
House assessed at 16,000 



$35,000 Tax, $612.50 

The land upon which stands house No. 17 Quincy Street, as well 
as houses Nos. 11, 25, 37, on said street, hereinafter to be mentioned, 
was conveyed to the President and Fellows of Harvard College in 1835. 

This land was not a part of the original college yard, but was made 
a part thereof after the purchase aforesaid by removing the fences 
and monuments which had hitherto separated the same, thus making 
the said land and the college yard one large field upon which stood 
these several houses without any dividing fences between the same. 

The house No. 17 Quincy Street was built in 1860-61, from the gift 
of S10,000 and accumulated income made April 14, 1846, by Peter C. 
Brooks, who said in his letter of gift, "It is my wish that this sum 



182 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

should be expended in aid of the erection of a dwelling-house for the 
president of the university and his successors whenever it may be the 
desire of the present president that a new house should be built." 

All additions and repairs upon this house were paid for from this 
gift and accumulaljions until it was all spent, and since then such 
repairs and additions have been paid for by the college. 

The premises are kept in order and repair, including grading, 
graveling walks, fertilizing, and repairing and cleaning the furnace, 
removal of ashes, etc., under the direction of the college superintendent 
of buildings and the superintendent of grounds, at the college expense, 
and for the most part by the college employees. Outside repairs are 
made by the superintendents as may seem best to them wthout waiting 
for the request of the occupant; inside repairs are made by them upon 
the occupant's request. 

The house is occupied by the president of the university and his 
family. He receives as such president a salary and pays no rent or 
compensation for the use and occupation of this house. He has no 
lease of said house, but occupies it if he so chooses so long as he 
performs the duties of the office of president. Partly for his own con- 
venience and partly for the convenience of the college, the drawing- 
room and hall are used for meetings of the faculty and committees, 
for conferences with university officers and students, for calls on 
university business, and the meeting of the corporation at which 
degrees are voted annually, and all the lovrer floor, except possibly 
the kitchen, is used for Class Day, Commencement, and other recep- 
tions, and for many hospitalities incident to the president's functions. 

The rest of the house is used by the president and his family as a 
dwelling-house, consists of the usual living and housekeeping rooms 
and chambers, and no other use than as hereinbefore stated is made 
of it. 

The president is required by statute of the university to live in 
Cambridge. 

Since the house was built the presidents have lived in it in manner 
aforesaid, but neither the house or the land upon which it stands was 
ever assessed or taxed to the college until the year 1897, nor were the 
other houses and lands hereinafter mentioned assessed or taxed to 
the college prior to the year 1897. 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 183 

No. 17 Kirkland Street, 

Assessed 1897, 30,475 feet of land at S18,000 
House at 6,000 



$24,000 Tax, 

The correct area of this land is 28,953 square feet. The estate was 
conveyed to the President and Fellows of Harvard College on May 
25, 1889. The main part of the building is used above the lower 
story as a college dormitory, and it is in charge of a resident proctor. 
The college at its own expense, by its superintendents, janitor and 
employees, attends to the whole of the repairs, the daily care, cleaning, 
making beds, removing ashes, etc., of this part of the building; the 
students hire these rooms of the college and are charged in their term 
bills stated sums therefor, which amounted in the year 1897 to the 
gross sum of $975. 

The college also attends to all the outside repairs upon the whole 
building, the cutting of grass, trimming of trees, raking and removal 
of leaves and rubbish, graveling of walks, grading, etc., of the whole 
lot. Over the ell in the rear the three rooms are used for the sleeping 
rooms of the servants employed in the building. 

The lower story of the building is assigned as a refectory for the 
Foxcroft Club, an association of students of the university organized 
for the purpose of obtaining wholesome food at cost. The college 
receives no rent or compensation in any form for the use of this estate 
by the Foxcroft Club. The college pays the bills of the club on the 
approval of the officers of the club, charging interest on money so 
advanced to the date of repayment, and collects on regular college 
term bills these charges against the students for their board. The 
daily care of and repairs upon the part of the building used by the 
club are attended to by the club at its expense, except that glazing and 
outside repairs are attended to by the college at the college expense. 

The club has had no lease or fixed term of use; it has hitherto used 
the premises without charge. 

3. No. 11 Quincy Street, 

Assessed 1897, 18,000 feet of land at $14,000 
House at 5,000 



$19,000 Tax, $332.50 
Since 1893 this house has been occupied by Professor George H. 



184 EXEMPTION FHO-M TAXATION 

Piilincr and his wife. Professor Palmer is Alford Professor of Natural 
Religion, ^Nlorai Philosophy, and Civil Polity. Partly for his eon- 
venience and partly for the convenience of the college, the drawing- 
room and hall in said house are used for regular college exercises during 
the college year, and also for interviews with college students and 
instructors upon business of the university. The rest of the house is 
used by the })rofessor and his family and consists of the usual living 
and housekee})ing rooms and chambers. 

The premises are cared for at the expense of the college in the same 
manner and to the same extent as is above described in relation to 
No. 17 Quincy Street. 

When in the fall of the year the salary of Professor Palmer for the 
current college year is voted, it is fixed as a certain sum "and the use 
of house $750," otherwise Professor Palmer pays no rent and has no 
other agreement for his occupation and use of said house, but uses it 
as such professor. 

4. No. 16 Quincy Street, 

Assessed 1897, 11,600 feet of land at $6,600 
House at 5,400 



$12,000 Tax, $210 

This estate contains 10,940 square feet of land and was conveyed 
to the President and Fellows of Harvard College as a gift by Henry 
C. Warren, April 19, 1892. 

Since 1892 this house has been occupied by Assistant Professor F. 
C. de Sumichrast and family. This professor is the head of the de- 
partment of French and Chairman of the Freshman Advisers Com- 
mittee of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. This is a large committee 
of about twenty persons, each of whom has charge of a section of the 
Freshman Class. As such chairman, partly for his own convenience 
and partly for the convenience of the committee, the professor has a 
great number of interviews at this house with students and parents in 
his drawing-room, and this room and the hall adjoining is also thus 
used for meetings of the committee and for other college puq:)Oses 
incident to his several duties. The vest of the house is used by the 
professor and his family, and consists of the usual living and house- 
keeping rooms and chambers. 

The premises are cared for and kept in repair at the expense of the 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 186 

college in the same manner and to the same extent as is above described 
in relation to No. 17 Quincy Street. 

When in the fall of the year his salary is voted, it is fixed at a certain 
sum "and the use of house S500," otherwise the professor pays no 
rent and has no other agreement for his occupation and use of said 
house, but uses it as such professor. 

5. No. 25 Quincy Street, 

Assessed 1897, 28,000 feet of land at $16,000 
House at 8,000 



$24,000 Tax, $420 

This house was occupied in 1897 and prior thereto by Professor N. 
S. Shaler and family. Professor Shaler is Professor of Geology, Dean 
of the Lawrence Scientific School, Chairman of Committees of the 
Faculty of Arts and Sciences on Reception of Students, Summer 
Courses, Admission to the Scientific School from other scientific 
schools, Advisers of Scientific Students, and Four Year Courses in 
Scientific School, and Chairman of the Board of Examination Proctors. 

In 1892 the college at its own expense made additions and improve- 
ments on the first floor of the house, which made it more convenient 
for the transaction of college business and the entertaining of guests 
on college account. The drawing-room and hall and additions are 
used for different college purposes incident to the several duties of 
Mr. Shaler. The rest of the house is used by the professor and his 
family, and consists of the usual living and housekeeping rooms and 
chambers. The premises are cared for and kept in repair at the 
expense of the college, in the same manner and to the same extent as 
is above described in relation to No. 17 Quincy Street. When in the 
fall of each year the salary of Professor Shaler is voted, it is fixed at a 
certain sum "and the use of house SIOOO," otherwise Professor Shaler 
pays no rent and has no other agreement for his occupation and use of 
said house, but uses it as such professor and dean. 

6. No. 37 Quincy Street, 

Assessed 1897, 18,000 feet of land at $11,000 
House at 6,000 



$17,000 Tax, $297.50 
This house was built by the colles'e in 1849, and in 1897 and prior 



186 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

thereto was oceupied by C. C. Langdell, Dane Professor of Law, and 
his family. It is cared for and kept in repair at the expense of the 
college, in the same manner and to the same extent as is above described 
in relation to No. 17 Quincy Street. When his salary is voted in the 
fall of the year, it is fixed at a certain sum "and the use of house $700," 
otherwise Professor Langdell pays no rent and has no other agreement 
for his occupation and use of said house, but uses it as such professor. 

7. No. 38 Quincy Street, 

Assessed 1897, 10,000 feet of land at $6,000 
House at 6,000 



$12,000 Tax, $210 

These premises contain 2Ll'i9 square feet of land. This estate has 
not been assessed or taxed from the time of its acquisition by the 
college until the year 1897, except that about one half of the land in 
the whole lot is reported for taxation by and taxed to the college as 
unused land, and the other half is now^ taxed as above by the assessors. 

This estate was conveyed to the President and Fellows of Harvard 
College as a gift from Henry C. Warren, January 28, 1892, with the 
request of the donor that no brick or stone building be erected on the 
premises during his life without his consent in writing, or after his 
death without the similar consent of any person named by him, if then 
living in the same house as at the time of the gift. 

This house in 1897 was occupied by Professor John H. Wright, 
Professor of Greek and Dean of the Graduate School, and his family. 
The drawing-room and, hall therein are used for different college 
purposes incident to his duties, partly for his own convenience and 
partly for the convenience of the college. The rest of the house is 
used by him and his family, and consists of the usual living and house- 
keeping rooms and chambers. The premises are cared for and kept 
in repair at the expense of the college, in the same manner and to the 
same extent as is above described in relation to No. 17 Quincy Street. 

WTien his salary is voted in the fall of each year it is fixed at a certain 
sum "and the use of house $900," otherwise Professor Wright ]>ays 
no rent and has no other agreement for his use and occupation of said 
house, but uses it as such professor and dean. 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAiMBRIDGE 187 

8. No. 11 Frisbie Place, 

Assessed 1897, 20,000 feet of land at $8,000 
. House at 10,000 



$18,000 Tax, $315 

This is a part of the land conveyed to the college by Charles and 
Charlotte Saunders by deed dated September 1, 1863. 

This house in 1897 was occupied by James Barr Ames, Bussey 
Professor of Law and Dean of the Law School, and his family. The 
drawing-room therein and hall adjoining are used for different college 
uses and purposes incident to his duties, partly for his own convenience 
and partly for the convenience of the college. The rest of the house is 
used by the professor and his family, and consists of the usual living 
and housekeeping rooms and chambers. The premises are cared for 
and kept in repair at the expense of the college, in the same manner and 
to the same extent as is above described in relation to No. 17 Quincy 
Street. 

When his salary is voted in the fall of the year, it is fixed at a certain 
sum "and the use of house S700," otherwise Professor Ames pays no 
rent and has no other agreement for his occupation and use of said 
house, but uses it as such professor and dean. 

The several deans herein mentioned are charged each with a portion 
of the administrative duties which formerly devolved exclusively on the 
president. 

Upon the facts as above agreed I ruled that I was authorized to find, 
and did therefore find, that the several properties therein referred to 
are exempt from taxation and found for the petitioners in the sum of 
twenty-nine hundred twenty-two and fifty hundredths (2922.50) 
dollars principal, and interest thereon from October 7, 1897, to wit: 
the sum of two hundred sixty-seven and ninety hundredths (267.90) 
dollars, in all thirty-one hundred ninety and forty hundredths (3190.40) 
dollars. 

The respondents being aggrieved by said decision duly excepted 
thereto, and by consent of the parties the case is reported to the Supreme 
Judicial Court for its decision. 

If the court shall determine that either of the said properties is 
exempt from taxation, judgment shall be entered thereupon for the 
petitioners for the tax assessed upon such property and interest from 
October 7, 1897; otherwise judgment shall be entered for the respond- 



188 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

ent upon such of said properties as are so determined not to be exempt 
from taxation. 

CHARLES U. BELL, J. S. C. 



On November IG, 1899, the case was argued before the Full Bench 
of the Supreme Judicial Court, which consisted of Chief Justice Holmes 
and Justices Barker, Morton, Lathrop, Hammond, ajid Loring. Mr. 
Samuel Hoar, on behalf of Harvard College, and Mr. Gilbert A. A. 
Pevey, on behalf of the Assessors of Cambridge, argued the case upo?i the 
following printed briefs: — 

BRIEF FOR HARVARD COLLEGE 

Early History of the College. 

Harvard College was founded in 1636 by a vote of the General Court 
of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, which convened on September 
8 of that year. The language of the order was as follows : — 

The Court agree to give Four Hundred Pounds towards a school or college, 
whereof Two Hundred Pounds shall be paid the next year and Two Hundred 
Pounds when the work is finished, and the next Court to appoint where and 
what building. 

In 1637 the General Court appointed twelve of the most eminent 
men of the Colony "to take order for a college at Newtown." 

In 1638 the name Newtown was changed by the General Court to 
Cambridge, in recognition of the English university, where many of 
the Colonists had been educated. In the same year, after the gift 
of John Harvard, the college was given the name of Harvard. 

In 1642 the general government of the college and the management 
of its funds were placed in the hands of a Board of Overseers by act 
of the General Court. 

In 1650 a charter was granted to the college by which the college 
was made a corporation consisting of a President, five Fellows, and a 
Treasurer, to be called by the name of the President and Fellows of 
Harvard College. 

The term "university" was first applied to Harvard College in 1780, 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 189 

in the Constitution of the Commonweahh of Massachusetts, which 
ratified and confirmed to the president and fellows all their vested 
powers, rights, and immunities. 

The general purpose of the formation of the college is declared to be 
for the "advancement and education of youth in all manner of good 
hterature, arts, and sciences" (Charter, May 31, 1650). Nowhere 
in the statutes are the terms "college" or "university" defined, but 
the president and fellows are given power to make such "orders and 
by-laws for the better ordering and carrying on the work of the college 
as they shall think fit" (Charter). 

The term "college," however, had a very definite meaning in the 
minds of the early Colonists, as many of the leading men among them 
had been educated in English colleges. And inasmuch as the General 
Court changed the name of the college town from Newtown to Cam- 
bridge, in recognition of one of the great English universities, we must 
believe that its members had in mind the great universities of England 
as models for the new college in New England. An examination into 
the constitution and scope of the English universities, and the colleges 
of which they are aggregations, ought to help us to understand what, 
in the minds of the founders of Harvard University, could properlv 
be done "in carrying on the work of the college," or in the language 
of the statute under consideration, in carrying out "the purposes for 
which they were incorporated." 

The colleges, it must be distinctly kept in mind, were primarily convictoria, 
or boarding-houses. 

Vol. I., V. A. Huber, English Universities, p. 178. 

Hammersley, J., says in the case of Yale University v. New Haven: — 

As first used, "college" indicated a place of residence for students, and 
occasionally a " universifas," or " studium generale." . . . .A suggestion of the 
modern university appears in the College and Library of Alexandria founded 
and endowed by Ptolemy Soter. Here the Museum provided from the first 
lodgings and refectory for the professors, and later similar provisions were 
made for the students .... At first little more than lodging rooms and refectory, 
they [colleges] grew, especially in England, to be the home of students for all 
purposes. The instruction and discipline of the university were through the 
colleges .... With changes in conditions, the college was largely eliminated 
from the Continental universities, while in England the uniA^ersity became 
practically the associated colleges. Merton College, Oxford, founded in 1264, 



190 EXEMPTIOxX FROM TAXATION 

was the prototj'pe of the English college. That college consisted of the chapel, 
refectory, and dormitories. .. .As Newman says, the university, to enforce 
discipline, developed itself into colleges, and so the term "college" was taken 
to mean a place of residence for the university student, who would there find 
himself under the guidance and instruction of superiors and tutors bound to 
attend to his personal interest, moral and intellectual. See passim 3 Newman, 
Hist. Sketches; Lyte's History of University of Oxford; 1 & 2 Huber, English 
Universities; Enc. Brit. "Universities.". .. .And so at the beginning of the 
seventeenth century the students of an English university lived in colleges, 
were instructed and governed through colleges, whether the university included 
a number of colleges or a single college, and among the buildings indispensable 
for every college were the great hall or dining-room, and the living rooms or 
dormitories. 

Yale University v. New Haven, 71 Conn. 316. 
See also History of University of Oxford, G. C. Broderick, Ch. II., 18-20. 

From Atkinson and Clark's "History of the University of Cam- 
bridge" (p. 243) it appears that the colleges originally were lodging- 
houses for the master and fellows, and that the students came in 
after\\ards. 

At Oxford by Statute of 1432 all members of the university were 
required to be inmates of some college or hall, except those who should 
be especially licensed by the Chancellor to live in lay houses. 

Broderick, Hist, of Un. of Oxford, pp. 61, 62. 

Thus at the time that Harvard College was founded the English 
colleges were communities of fellow-s and scholars, each housing and 
feeding its own members, including the master or head or president, 
and each with the necessary officers, servants, buildings, and equip- 
ment for attending to the physical wants of its inmates; and in the 
buildings of which an English college usually consisted we find the 
jiresident's chamber, the felloAvs' rooms, scholars' rooms, warden's 
lodgings, the treasury, the library, the chapel, the hall oi commons, 
buttery, kitchen, brewery, storehouse, offices, and stables. 

C. Grant Robertson, University of Oxford, All Souls, chap. I. 
Stokes' University of Cambridge, Corpus Christi, chap. II. 
Gray's Queen's College, chap. II. and VII. 
Broderick's Hist, of University of Oxford, chap. II. 

And in like manner Harvard College, from its foundation, was a 
community of teachers and students living in the college, housed 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 191 

and fed by the college. In College Book Number Three of die 
Records of Harvard College, die first step taken to build the College 
in accordance with the vote of the General Court of the Colony of 
Massachusetts Bay, in 1636, is recorded in the following language: — 

Mr. Nathaniel Eaton was chosen Professor of said School in the year one 
thousand six jiundred and thirty-seven, to whom the care and management 
of the donations before mentioned were intrusted, for the erecting of such 
edifices as were meet and necessary for a college, and for his own lodgings. 

1 Quincy's Hist. Harv. Un., 452. 

Early College Buildings by A. McF. Davis, p. 3. 

The first college building was begun by Eaton, and was completed 
by Samuel Shepard, who took charge in 1639. It consisted of a 
cellar, a hall which was used as a dining-room and for recitations 
and religious exercises, a library, a kitchen, a buttery, a larder or 
pantry, and eight chambers for fellows or tutors and students, two of 
them small, and intended for a single occupant each, the others in- 
tended for three or four occupants each, and each containing three 
or four studies, besides five studies in the "turret." 

Davis' Early College Buildings, 16 and 17. 
Davis' College in Early Days. 

The second college building was the president's house. This was 
erected by the college under the supervision of Henry Dunster, the 
first president of the college, who was appointed in 1640. The Gen- 
eral Court early recognized the public character of the president's 
house by a grant in the following language (the money, however, 
was never paid) : — 

The 13th of the 9th mo. A. 1644. It was ordered that Mr. Dunster, Presi- 
dent of the College at Cambridge, shall have £150 assigned to him (to be gath- 
ered by the Treasurer for the College) out of the money due for the children 
sent out of England to be expended for a house of be built for the said Presi- 
dent, in part of the £400 promised unto him for his use, to belong to the College. 

Quincy's Hist. Harv. Un., Vol. I., appendix No. VII., p. 473. 

This house was occupied by the president and his family. In it 
were also the printing press and a student's room. Students' rooms 
were also provided in the Gofi'e house, which was purchased by the 
college, and the Indian College built for the "convenience of six hope- 



192 EXEMPTION' FROM TAXATION 

ful Indian youths to be trained up thelx^" but occupied generally by 
some twenty white students. 

In College Book No. 1 we find the duties of the steward, the cook, 
the butler, and the servitors or waiters set forth with the greatest 
minuteness; there is also mention of the brewer and the baker. 

Col. Book No. 1, p. 23. 

There are detailed regulations for the orderly conduct of students 
in their relations with the outside world and with the college, their 
behavior and supervision in their chambers, in the hall, and at meals. 

Col. Book. No. 1, pp. 17 and 23, 157. 

It has always been the law that "the ])resident shall constantly 
reside in Cambridge." 

Col. Book No. 1, p. 157. 
Report, p. 4. 

President Dunster was the first occupant of the president's house, 
and when he was forced to resign in 1654, having fallen "into the 
briers of Antipaedobaptism," he had to address a pathetic appeal to 
the General Court to save himself and family from being at once 
ejected from the house. 

Quincy's Hist, of Harv. Un., Vol. I., pp. 18 and 19. 

In the year 1700, after Increase Mather had finally consented as 
president of the college to live in Cambridge, a committee of the Gen- 
eral Court was appointed "to take care that a suitable place was 
provided at Cambridge for the reception and entertainment of the 
President, and to consider what ought to be done with respect to a 
house already built for a President's house." 

Quincy's Hist, of Harv. Un., Vol. I., pp. 109 and 110. 

The use of this house was understood to be part of the president's 
compensation, and President Leverett petitioned for compensation for 
the "demolition in part" of the house, and after his death his daugh- 
ters and heirs petitioned for compensation because their father had 
been de{)rived of the use of the president's house after it was pulled 
down, about 1720, to make room for Massachusetts Hall. 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 193 

On June 18, 1725, a committee of the General Court was appointed 
"to look out a suitable house for the reception of the president and 
know what the same may be had for," and on June 23, the same 
month, the same committee was "further empowered to hire such a 
house for the space of six months next coming, or until they make 
report to this Court in their fall session." 

Resolves of 1725. 

And on Jan. 1, 1726, the General Court passed the following re- 
solve for the purpose of providing a home for President Wadsworth, 
which house has ever since been known as the Wadsworth House: — 

And whereas there is not at present any convenient house provided for the 
reception and entertainment of the president of the said college for ye future, 
and the Court being wilUng and desirous to repeat their intentions and inclina- 
tions in all things for ye prosperity of that society and that the same may 
flourish under the Divine Influence, 

It is resolved that the simi of one thousand pounds be allowed and paid out 
of the public treasury to the corporation of Harvard College and by them to 
be forthwith used and disposed of for the building & finishing a handsome 
wooden dwelling house, barn, out housing &c. on some part of ye land adjacent 
and belonging to the said college. Which is for the reception and accomoda- 
tion of the Rev. the president of Harvard College for the time being, 

A statute of the General Court of the Province which authorized 
a lottery for the purpose of raising the sum of £3000 for building a 
new hall for lodging-rooms for students, has the following preamble : — 

Whereas the buildings belonging to Harvard College are greatly insufficient 
for lodging the students of the said college, and will become much moie so 
when Stoughton Hall shall be pulled down, as by its present ruinous state it 
appears it soon must be ; and whereas there is no fund for erecting such build- 
ings, and considering the great expence which the general court has lately 
been at in building Hollis Hall, and also in rebuilding Harvard College, it 
cannot be expected that any further provision for the college should be made 
out of the public treasury, so that no other resort is left but to private bene- 
factions, which it is conceived, will be best excited by means of a lottery, there- 
fore, to prevent the further inconveniences which vnW arise from the necessary 
pulling down of Stoughton Hall and to pro\'ide for the present want of lodg- 
ing rooms in the said college, .... 

Pro\ince Laws 1765-66, chap. 21. 

This method of helping the college to provide buildings for its stu- 



194 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

dents, which was begun under the authority of the Province of Massv. 
ehusetts Bay, was resorted to also under the authority of the State 
Legislature. 

Laws and Resolves, 1795, chap. 1. 
Laws and Resolves, 180.5, chap. 5. 

In the early history of the college, the students and the professors, 
fellows, or tutors were obliged to live in the college unless specially 
excused. At a meeting of the Overseers, Anno 1660, it was ordered : — 

That no student shall live or board in the family or private house of any 
Inhabitant in Cambridge without leave from the President and his Tutor, 
and if any upon such leave obtained shall so live, yet they shall attend all 
College Exercises, religious and Scholasticall & be under Colledge Order & 
Discipline as others ought to do & be that are resident in the Colledge & shall 
pay allso.five shillings a Quarter towards Colledge Detriment, beside their 
Tutorage. 

Col. Book No. 2, p. 23. 

Anno 1666. It is ordered by the Overseers that such as are fellows of the 
Colledge, & have sallaryes payd them out of the Treasury shall have their 
constant Residence in the Colledge, and shall lodge therein & be present with 
the Schollars at meal times in the Hall, have their studyes in the Colledge 
that so they may be better enabled to inspect the manners of the Schollars & 
prevent all unnecessary Dammage to the Society. 

College Book No. 3, p. 25. 

Quincy's Hist, of Harv. Un., Appen. No. 4, pp. 540, 549. 

In the College Laws of 1734, chap. 5, par. 1, it is provided as fol- 
lows: — 

All the Tutors, & Professors, Graduates & Undergraduates, w^o have studies 
in College, shall constantly be in commons, while actually residing at College, 
vacation time excepted: and shall Dine and Sup in the Hall, at ye stated 
meal times, except waiters (and such whose Parents or Guardians live so nigh 
that they may conveniently board with them) and such others as the Presi- 
dent and Tutors shall in case.? of necessity exempt, Provided always that no 
Professor or Tutor shall be exempted but by leave of the Corporation with 
the consent of the Overseers. And the Tables shall be covered with clean 
linen cloaths, of ?• suitable length and breadth twice a week, and furnished 
with Pewter Plates, the plates to be procured at ye charge of the College, and 
afterwards to be maintained at the charge of the Scholars, both Graduates 
and Undergraduates, in such manner as the Corporation shall Direct. 

College Book No. 1, pp. 168, 169. 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 195 

Laws of 1790, Chap. VIII., par. 2: The professors shall constantly reside at 
Cambridge, near the College, and the Tutors and Librarian in the College. 
And the Corporation shall assign to the Tutors, and such Professors as reside 
in the College, their respective chambers. 

The laws and practices of the University have been substantially 
the same to the present time, housing as many of its students as it 
can find chambers for, feeding them in one or more halls or dining- 
rooms, and requiring them to live as much as possible under the super- 
vision of tutors and professors, who, as far as practicable, are required 
to live in college buildings or so near the college that they can exert 
a guiding and restraining influence over the students. 

Laws of 1798, Chap. VIII., par. 2, and subsequent years. 



ARGUMENT 



Exempting Statutes 

From the foregoing historical references, it is very evident that from 
the beginning the Corporation and the Overseers of Harvard College 
have considered the College to be essentially a community of teachers 
and students, housed and fed in the college, living in college buildings, 
subject to the disciplinary rules of the College where the restraining 
and guiding influences of the president and teachers could be brought 
directly to bear upon the students. It is equally clear that in accord- 
ance with this idea, they considered it absolutely necessary for the 
accomplishment of the purposes for which the college was incorpo- 
rated that it should have buildings suitable for housing and feeding 
its president and teachers and students. 

The historical evidence is quite as strong that the General Courts 
of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, of the Province of Massachusetts 
Bay, and of the CommonAvealth of Massachusetts held the same view 
of the College, and of the means necessary for the accomplishment of 
its purposes, for we have seen that the Colony, the Province, and the 
Commonwealth at times when their resources were very limited, pro- 
vided, or helped to provide, buildings to be used as the dwelling places 
or homes of the president, teachers, and students of the College. 



196 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

It would certainly be a very strange and illogical policy for the Col- 
ony, the Province, or the Commonwealth to put a tax upon buildings, 
which they considered so essential to the College that they strained 
their own resources to help build and maintain them, or to tax build- 
ings which are used for the same purposes as those which they so 
hel})ed to construct and maintain. But an examination of the laws 
by which Harvard College has been exempted from taxation will 
show that such an unreasonable and illogical policy was never put in 
force by either of the sovereign powers under which the College has 
existed. 

Under its charter, which it received from the Colony, the College 
was authorized to hold real estate not exceeding the value of five 
hundred pounds per annum and any amount of personal property; 
its real estate, not exceeding the value of five hundred pounds per 
annum, and all its personal property were exempted from taxation; in 
other words, under its charter all its property was exempted. 

Stat, of May 31, 1650. 

This exemption granted by the Colony in the charter has ever since 
been respected by the Province and the Commonwealth; it is in force 
to-day and applies to all the property which the College had when it 
received its charter. 

Hardy v. Waltham, 7 Pick. 108. 

Harvard College v. Aldermen of Boston, 104 Mass. 470. 

The Province, however, did more than observe the exemption of 
the charter of the College; it expressly exempted all its property, and 
in all the numerous acts passed by the General Court of the Province 
of Massachusetts Bay for apportioning and assessing taxes, we find 
provisions substantially in the same form, exempting from assessment 
both the property of the College and, with some qualifications, that 
of the President, Fellows, instructors, and students of the College. 

In the last of these acts passed by the General Court of the Province, 
the language of the exemption is as follows: — 

Provided, nevertheless, that the following persons, viz., the president, fel- 
tows, professors, tutors, librarian, and students of Harvard College who have 
their usual residence there,. . . .are not to be assessed for their polls or their 
estate, unless their real estate be not under their actual management and 



HARVARD COLLFGE V. CAMBRIDGE 197 

improvement;. .. .and also all persons who have the management and im- 
provement of the estate of Harvard College are not to be assessed for the same. 

Province Laws 1780, chap. 16, sec. 4. 

The first act of the General Court of the Commonwealth, apportion- 
ing and assessing a tax, — Laws and Resolves of 1780, chap. 43, — 
contains exactly the same provision as that above copied from the 
Province Laws of the same year. And this identical clause of exemp- 
tion is found in ail the subsequent acts down to 1784 (L. & R. 1781, 
chap. 28; 1782 chap. 65; 1784, chap. 23; 1784, chap. 25). 

The first clause of these provisions, which exempted the president, 
fellows, tutors, librarian, and students of Harvard, and later of Williams 
and Amherst, and of all theological, medical, and literary institutions, 
and preceptors of academies, was repeated in the various tax statutes, 
with slight modifications, until 1829, when it was repealed (Acts of 
1828, chap. 143, passed March 4, 1829), and we need not further 
consider it. 

In chap. 23 of the Laws and Resolves of 1784, an Act for ascertaining 
the ratable property of the Commonwealth, the clause exempting the 
college property is as follows: — 

Provided also that all the estate of Harvard College and lands belonging 
to the Indians are excluded from this Act. 

In the Act of 1785 apportioning and assessing a tax, the exempting 
clause is as follows: 

And also all persons who have the management or improvement of the estate 
of Harvard College are not to be assessed for the same. 

And the provision was repeated in substantially the same form in 
every subsequent Act down to 1801, the exemption being extended to 
the property of Williams College in 1794 and of Bowdoin in 1795 
(1787, chap. 56; 1788, chap. 67A; 1789, chap. 49; 1790, chap. 25A; 
1793, chap. 9A; 1794, chap. 9; 1795, chap. 11; 1796, chap. 6 and 51; 
1798, chap. 75; 1799, chap. 49; 1800, chap. 77; 1801, chap. 82). 

In the Acts passed in 1801, 1811, and 1821, for ascertaining the 
ratable estates in the Commonwealth (1800, chap. 66; 1810, chap. 
79, and 1820, chap. 64) the property of the colleges and academies 
is excluded from the ratable estates in the following words: — 

And also all the estates belonging to the said Harvard and Williams Colleges 
and to said academies. 



198 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION' 

And in the Acts for apportioninfj and assessing taxes in 1802 and 
subsequent thereto is the provision: — 

And also all persons who have the management of the estates of Harvard 
Colleges, Williams College, and Bowdoin College, and academies aforesaid in 
this Commonwealth, are not to be assessed for the same. 

This was repeated in each annual Tax Act down to and including 
1807. 

The Tax Act of 1808 (March 12, 1808) contains the following pro- 
vision: — 

And that all persons who have the management of the estates of Harvard, 
Williams, and Bowdoin Colleges, and of the academies aforesaid respectively, 
shall not be assessed for the same .... Provided, however, that nothing in this 
Act contained shall be so construed as to prevent the town of Cambridge from 
taxing the houses or lands belonging to the Corporation of Harvard College 
without the college bounds, in their town tax, excepting such estates as are 
improved by the president of said college, Professor of Theory and Practice 
of Physics, Professor of Theology, Professor of Mathematics, and Tutor of 
Logic, Metaphysics, and Ethics. 

This language was repeated in each annual Tax Act to and including 
1817. It is clear that the property of the college exempted from the 
town tax by these Acts of 1808-1817 cannot be other than the separate 
residences of the officers named. If the property described as the 
houses and land belonging to the college without the college bounds, 
and improved by the president of the college, the Professor of Physics, 
the Professor of Theology, the Professor of Mathematics, and the 
Tutor of Logic, Metaphysics, and Ethics, does not mean the residences 
of these professors, allotted to them by the college, it is hard to imagine 
what these words do describe, for the recitation rooms used by the 
president and the other instructors named were not at that time with- 
out the college bounds, and if they were, they could not be said to be 
improved by these professors. 

In 1818 the language of the exemption was the same as that of 1808, 
except the proviso, which was as follows: 

Provided, however, that nothing contained in this Act shall be so construed 
as to prevent the town of Cambridge from taxing the houses or lands belonging 
to the corporation of Harvard College without the college bounds in their 
town tax, excepting such estates as are occupied by the president of said col- 
lege, or by any of the professors, tutors, or instructors thereto belonging, or 
by students, or resident graduates, or shall be unoccupied. 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 199 

This clearly could operate as an extension of the exemption. 
The exempting clause in the Act of 1819 was the same as that of 1818, 
except that this clause is inserted before the proviso : — 

Nor shall the Massachusetts General Hospital be assessed for any real or 
personal estate belonging to the same. 

The Tax Acts of 1820 and 1821 contained the same exempting 
clause as in 1819, except that "Bowdoin College" is omitted from the 
Act of 1821, being then in Maine. 

The Act of 1822 was similar to that of 1821, with the following 
added at the end of the proviso: — 

Or to prevent the town of Andover from taxing such real estate belonging 
to the corporation of Phillips Academy situated in said town as shall not be 
under the immediate occupation and improvement of said corporation, or of 
any person or persons connected with said corporation exempted from taxa- 
tion by this Act. And provided also, that whenever the real and personal 
estate of any one of the persons before enumerated as exempted from taxation 
shall exceed the sum of eight thousand dollars, the excess of such person's 
estate shall be taxed as in other cases notwithstanding before provided by this 
Act. 

The exempting provision in 1823 and 1824 was the same as in 1822, 
except that in 1824 the phrase "Berkshire Medical Institution or the 
Boston Atheneum" is inserted after Massachusetts General Hospital. 

We find no State Tax Act between 1824 and 1829. 

In. 1829 the exempting clause was as follows: — 

Sec. 6. Be it further enacted, that all persons who have the manage- 
ment of the estates of Harvard, Williams, and Amherst Colleges and of the 
Academies established by law respectively, shall not be assessed for the same, 
and that Indians shall not be assessed for their polls and estates, nor shall the 
Massachusetts General Hospital, Berkshire Medical Institution, or the Boston 
Athenseum be assessed for any real or personal estate belonging to them re- 
spectively. . . .Provided, however, that nothing contained in this act shall be 
so construed as to prevent the town of Cambridge from taxing the houses or 
lands belonging to the corporation of Harvax'd College without the College 
bounds in their town tax excepting such estates as are occupied by the presi- 
dent of said College, or by any of the professors, Tutors, or Instructors thereto 
belonging, or by students or resident graduates, or shall be unoccupied, or to 
prevent the town of Andover from taxing such real estate belonging to the 
corporation of Phillips Academy situated in said town as shall not be under 
the immediate occupation and improvement of said corporation. 



200 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

This language is also found in the Acts of 1830 and 1831. 

There was no State Tax Act between 1831 and 1834. The act 
passed in 1830 for ascertaining the ratable estates for the following 
ten years excepted 

All the estates belonging to Harvard, Williams, and Amherst Colleges and 
to incorporated Theological Institutions and Academics antl also the estate 
belonging to the Massachusetts General Hospital and improved for the pur- 
poses of that Institution. (Acts of 1830, chap. 130.) 

This is the complete legislative history of the exemption from 
taxation of the property of Harvard College down to 1835. V\e have 
included therein the statute exemj)tions of the other colleges, academies, 
and educational institutions of the Commonwealth, for the reason 
that in 1835 the legislation exempting the property of each one of these 
institutions separately and with particularity was revLsed and con- 
densed by the employment of general terms into one general provision 
affecting all of them. This review of the various statutes shows that 
neither the Colony, the Province, nor the Commonwealth, up to 1835, 
ever taxed the houses or lands of the College that were occupied by its 
president, professors, tutors, instructors, students, or resident graduates. 

The Commissioners appointed in 1832 "to revi.se, collate and 
arrange, as well the Colonial and Provincial Statutes as all other the 
General Statutes of the Commonwealth which are or may be m force 
at the time when such Commissions may finally report," reported on 
the subject in (juestion, in December, 1834, as follows: — 

The following property and polls shall be exempted from taxation, namely. 

Second. The property of the Massachusetts General Hospital, the Boston 
Atheneum, and the Berkshire Medical Institution. 

Third. The property of Harvard College; provided, however, that the 
inhabitants of the town of Cambridge may, for town purpo.ses, tax such real 
estate in that town belonging to the Corporation of Harvc rd College as is not 
within the college bounds and is not occupied by the president, or any professor 
instructor, tutor, student, or resident graduate, and .also such as shall ba 
unoccupied. 

Fourth. The property of Phillips Academy in Andover; provided, how- 
ever, that the Inhabitants of the town of Andover may, for town purposes, 
tax such real estate in that town belonging to the Corporation of Phillips 
Academy, as is not under the immediate occupation or improvement of said 
corporation, or of any person who is connected with said corporation, and is 
exempted in this chapter from taxation. 

Fifth. The property of Williams College and Amherst College. 

Sixth. The property of every academy incorporated under the authority 
of this Commonwealth. 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 201 

The Commissioners were instructed in the resolve authorizing their 
appointment "to execute and complete said revision in such manner 
as in their opinion will render the said General Laws most concise, 
plain, and intelligible." There was in the clauses of sect. 5 of chap. 
7 of their report, however, little or no attempt at conciseness. The 
Legislature was evidently of opinion that it could improve the language 
in this regard, while at the same time equalizing the privilege granted 
to the various institutions named. And in the Revised Statutes, 
chap. 7, sect. 5, these five clauses were condensed into the following 
form : — 

Secondly. The personal property of all literary, benevolent, charitable, 
and scientific institutions incorporated within this Commonwealth, and such 
real estate belonging to such institutions as shall actually be occupied by them 
or by the officers of said institutions for the purposes for which they werj 
incorporated. 

In the subsequent revisions of the statutes in 1860 and ISSl, and in 
the amending Act of 1889, substantially the same language is employed 
with certain additions that are immaterial in the consideration of this 
case, and as there is no contention that the Legislatures of 1860, ISSl, 
and 1889, while using the language of the Revised Statutes, intended 
to change the meaning thereof, the question for us to consider is what 
changes the Legislature of 1835 intended to make, or what meaning 
they intended to give to the general, condensed language of the ex- 
empting provision above quoted. 

If we compare the language of the Revised Statutes with that of the 
Commissioners' Report, or with the State Tax Act of 1831, of which 
the Commissioners' Report is a restatement, it becomes evident that 
the Legislature of 1835 intended — 

First. To give all the institutions named in the Statute of 1831, 
and to all other literary, benevolent, charitable, and scientific institu- 
tions incorporated within this Commonwealth, the same right to 
exemption from taxation. 

Second. To give to the State and to the Towns of Cambridge and 
Andover an equal right to impose taxes on the institutions within tho3e 
towns. 

Third. That the mere fact that the property of the College was 
"within the college bounds" (if that phrase means anything more 
than "actually occupied by" the College), or that it was unoccupied, 
should no longer be sufficient grounds for exempting it from taxation. 



202 EXEMPTION IROM TAXATION 

We think that it is more than probable that property which under 
the Act of 1S31 would be designated as inside the College bounds is 
included in that which under the Revised Act would be designated as 
actually occupied by the College. 

Fourth. This Court has declared in Williams College v. Williams- 
town, 967 Mass. oOS, that the president, professors, and instructors 
of a college are officers thereof; therefore, by the phrase "officers of 
the said institution" in the Revised Act, the Legislature must be held 
to include "the president, or any of the professors, tutors, or instructors " 
of the Act of 1831. It probably also includes other officers than those 
enumerated in the Act of 1831. 

Fifth. In omitting the phrase, property occupied by the "students 
or resident graduates," the Legislature of 1835 very likely intended 
no alteration in the sense thereby, for the reason that they considered 
that a building of which the college kept the control, which was under 
the supervision of college officers (resident proctors), in which stu- 
dents' rooms were cleaned and kept in order by college servants 
(goodies); where all repairs and alterations were made by the college; 
where the students had no right to the hallways, except to pass through 
them, or to the rooms except to use them as mere licensees during the 
college term as dwelling places and studies, was actually occupied by 
the college, so that we may conclude that the phrase "actually occu- 
pied by them," of the Revised Act, includes the same property Avhich 
under the Act of 1831 would be designated as "within the college 
bounds," and occupied by the "students or resident graduates." 

Sixth. Under the Act of 1831 the purpose of the occupancy was 
assumed to be educational or charitable in gaining the exemption for 
the property occupied by the officers designated. Under the Revised 
Act this assumption is expressed and the occupancy must still be for 
the purpose for which the institution was incorporated in order to 
give it the right of exemption. 

We believe we have here indicated all the changes that the I^egis- 
lature of 1835 intended to make in this law of exemption, as it then 
existed, namely, making it apply to all the institutions designated 
equally, making the right of State tax and town tax coextensive, in- 
creasing the class of officers whose occupancy may gain the right of 
exemption, and therefore rec|uiring in terms that the occupancy be 
for the purpose for which the institution was incorporated. Only 
the latter of these changes is material to this case, — the purpose of 
the occupancy. 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 203 

II 

"Occupied by the Officers" 

As a majority of this Court have apparently based their decision 
in a recent case upon the quahty or kind of occupancy, it becomes 
important to consider the meaning of this word "occupied" which 
is used in the statutes both before and since the revision of 1835. 
When a term of one statute is used in a later statute upon the same 
subject matter, we have a right to infer that it is used in the same 
sense in each (Commonwealth v. Hartnett, 3 Gray, 450). In the 
Statute of 1831 we have the words "occupied" and "unoccupied" 
applied to property "belonging to the corporation." It is evident 
from this that "occupied" is not used in the constructive sense in 
which property that has no other occupant is said to be occupied by 
the owner after he has once taken possession, although the property 
may at the time be actually "unoccupied." What was necessary 
under the Statute of 1831 was the actual occupancy by one of the 
officers named. There can be no doubt that under this Statute of 
1831 occupancy by a professor under a written or oral lease of prop- 
erty belonging to the college would exempt the college from taxation 
for the property so leased, for such property would belong to the 
college and be occupied by its professor, which is literally what the 
statute required. 

As proof of what we have just said, that the Statute of 1831 required 
actual occupancy, we observe that the word "actually" is used in 
the Revised Act, the language being "such real estate belonging to 
such institutions as shall actually be occupied by them, or by the 
officers of said institutions for the purposes for which they were in- 
corporated." It is true that in the subsequent revisions of this Act, 
the word "actually" was omitted, but this was "without any apparent 
intention of changing the meaning," as has been said by this Court. 
This Court has also defined in the same case what the words "shall 
actually be occupied by them" (the institution) means in the follow- 
ing manner: — 

The word "occupied" in the statute is not used in the general sense in 
which a corporation or individual may be said to occupy their real estate 
when it is not occupied by any one else, but in the sense in which an incorpo- 
rated college, academy, hospital, or like institution, occupies its college, a cad- 



204 EXEMPTION' FROM TAXATION 

emy, or hospital, and the lands and buildings connected therewith. That this 
was the intention of the Legislature is shown by the Statute of 1878, chap. 214, 
passed probably in consequence of the decision of Trinity Church v. Boston, 
118 Mass. 164, which provides that "the real estate belonging to such institu- 
tions as are mentioned in the third division of section five of chapter eleven 
of the General Statutes, purchased with a view of removal thereto, shall not be 
exempt from taxation for a longer period than two years until such removal 
takes place." 

Lynn Workingmen's Aid Association v. Lynn, 136 Mass. at 285. 

It is clear that an incorporated institution can "occupy a college, 
academy, or hospital, or lands or buildings connected therewith" 
only by its officers or agents; therefore the phrase "actually occupied 
by them" covers every occupation on behalf of such an institution 
by its officers or agents. 

There is a well-known rule of construction "that every clause and 
word of a statute shall be presumed to have been intended to have 
some force and effect" (Opinion of the Justices, 22 Pick. 571, at 
573); therefore we must hold that this latter clause, "actually occu- 
pied by their officers," means something different from "actually 
occupied by them" (the institution); it means the occupancy by 
officers where the officers themselves are in occupation, and not the 
institution through its officers or agents. This will become more 
apparent if we remember that "actually occupied by their officers" 
is a revision of the clause in the Statute of 1831, "occupied by the 
president," etc. 

As we have contended above, the occupancy by "the president, 
professors, tutors, and instructors" recpiired by the Statute of 1831, 
and the occupancy by "officers" required by the Revised Statutes 
of 1835 and the subsequent enactments, is the same kind of occu- 
pancy, actual occupancy by the party designated, without qualifi- 
cation as to the degree or completeness of the occupant's control, 
unqualified as to the right or title under which the occupancy is main- 
tained, and qualified in the Statute of 1835 and its subsequent re- 
visions only in the purpose for which it is maintained; therefore, if 
we are right in our understanding that the decision of the majority 
of this Court in the case of Williams College v. Williamstown was 
based on the fact that the officers in that case were held to be tenants 
at will of the college and had an estate in the property, and were in 
sole occupation thereof, we are unable to follow the reasoning of that 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 205 

decision; for we fail to see anything in the Statute of 1831 or in the 
revisions of 1835, 1860, 1882, and 1889 which makes those facts deci- 
sive in determining the question of exemption; for, granted that the 
officers are tenants at will and in sole occupation of the property, it 
is still property "belonging to said institution" and is "actually occu- 
pied by the officers of said institution," which, so far as it goes, satis- 
fies literally the words of the various statutes. 

The fact that the premises are so leased to the occupant as to give 
him an estate therein may be an important consideration in deter- 
mining whether the premises are used for the purposes for which the 
institution was incorporated, and would be decisive of that cjuestion 
in connection with such other facts as that a full rent was received, 
that exclusive control was given for a definite period not depending 
on length of service to the college, that the location of the building 
was such that the college could gain no peculiar advantage from his 
occupation, or any other circumstances showing that the real purpose 
of the institution was to acquire profit from the use of the premises. 
But no one of these facts is by itself decisive of the question of the 
institution's purpose, which must be determined from all the circum- 
stances surrounding the occupancy. 

Ill 

How Occupied in this Case 

If, however, we assume that the law is now settled by the Williams 
College case, so that we must read into the Statute of 1835 the pro- 
viso, "Provided it is not so occupied exclusively by said officers as 
lessees under a w^ritten or oral lease," we shall see that the several 
houses and lots in this case come well within such proviso; because 
no one of the occupants can be said to be a lessee of the premises 
in which he lives, or to have any exclusive estate in said premises, 
but they all occupy their respective premises as licensees merely, and 
in part, at least, in common with the college and with other college 
officers. 

The president "has no lease of" 17 Quincy Street and the 32,000 
feet of land under and adjoining the same. This land is part of the 
college yard and is therefore in the possession and occupation of the 
college, and cared for and kept in order by the college superintendent. 



206 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

Assigning 32,000 feet of the college yard as appurtenant to this house 
was a mere arbitrary j)roc-ecding on the part of the assessors, and they 
might just as well have made it 60,000 or any other number of feet, 
and the president has no more i)Ossession of this 32,000 feet than he 
has of the rest of the college yard, or than any other officer or student 
of the college has. The house was built from a gift left to the college 
"in aid of the erection of a dwelling-house for the president of the 
university and his successors," and he and his family occupy the 
house "if he so chooses, so long as he performs the duties of the 
office of president." He "pays no rent or compensation for the use 
and occupation of this house." Part of the house is used for the 
meetings of other college officers on college business and for the trans- 
action of other college aft'airs. The house is repaired inside and out, 
and the furnace repaired and cleaned by college officers, and at the 
college expense. (Report, pp. 4, 5.) 

We submit that these facts show that the premises are not in the 
exclusive control of the president; that they are occupied in part by 
the college and its officers; that the president occupies so much of 
them as he occupies, not as lessee but as licensee; that there is no 
relation of landlord and tenant, but mere permission to occupy on 
one side, and on the other, no obligation either to occupy or to pay 
rent. It is exactly the kind of occupation that is described in the 
case of Pierce v. Inhabitants of Cambridge, 2 Cush. at 613, as ex- 
empting college property from taxation: — 

It would be otherwise if the building had been built for one of the professors 
or officers of the college and had been occupied by the plaintiff with the per- 
mission of the college and without having any estate therein or paying any 
rent therefor. 

Of No. 17 Kirkland Street, the grounds are cared for and super- 
intended by the college. The lower story of the house is assigned by 
the college as a refectory for the Foxcroft Club, an association of stu- 
dents organized for the purpose of obtaining wholesome food at cost. 
"The Club has had no lease nor fixed term of use" and pays no rent. 
The upper part of the building is used as a college dormitory in charge 
of a resident proctor; the whole of this part is repaired, the rooms 
kept clean, beds made up, etc., by college servants (Report p. 6). 
It is evident that the students are not lessees. Their relation is more 
thit of lodgers ((White v. Maynard, 111 Mass. 250), every college 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 207 

being, as we have seen above, essentially a boarding-school. In 
Province Laws 1765-66, chap. 1-9, as we have seen above, the stu- 
dents' rooms are called "lodging-rooms." This house and lot are 
clearly occupied by the college through its officers and agents. The 
other parties are there as licensees. 

The houses No. 11 Quincy Street, 25 Quincy Street, and 37 Quincy 
Street are, like the president's house, all in the college yard; therefore 
the land about them which has been taxed is all in the occupation of 
the college. The houses are cared for in the same manner as the 
president's house. The salary of each occupant "is fixed at a certain 
sum and the use of house." He pays no rent. Nos. 11 and 25 are 
used in part for regular college exercises and other different college 
purposes incident to the office of the occupant (Report pp. 7-9). It 
is evident that neither of these three professors has any lease of the 
premises occupied by him and that neither of them is in exclusive 
control of the houses and lots, but each in so far as he occupies, does 
so as professor or as professor and dean; in other words, each occupies 
as an officer of the college and either represents the college or is a 
licensee. 

The occupancy of the other three houses, 16 Quincy Street, 38 
Quincy Street, and 11 P^risbie Place, is essentially the same; it differs 
only in the fact that the houses are not built in the college yard, but 
the walks, grass, and turf are cared for in just the same way. Each 
house is used in part by other college officers for college business, and 
for various college purposes incident to the official duties of the pro- 
fessor who occupies as professor, or as professor and dean, as the case 
may be, that is to say, he occupies it in his official capacity (Report, 
pp. 8, 10, 11). As we have said in regard to the others, neither pays 
rent or is a lessee, nor has he exclusive control of the premises assigned 
to him. 

As the occupants in this case cannot be said to be lessees in exclusive 
control of these premises, the question remains. Are the several premises 
occupied for the purposes for which the college was incorporated ? 
And this, as we have above contended, is the sole test. 



208 EXEMPTION FliOM TAXATION 

IV 

THE Purpose of the Occupancy 

When premises belonging to one party are oecupied by another by 
permission or agreement of the owner, as purpose is an act of the mind, 
and there are two minds involved, there may strictly be two purposes in 
the occupancy, the purpose of the owner, and the purpose of the occu- 
pier, and one may differ widely from the other. The purpose of a 
landlord may be to get profit, or to use his property for i)ublic ends, 
that of the tenant to get a home, or a place to manufacture goods; 
the chief end or purpose of one is but the means towards the chief 
end or purpose of the other. In this case it is the college s property 
that is to be taxed or exempted, and it is the dealings of the college 
with its property, the use it makes of it, that is to decide the qutetion 
of its exemption. "The plaintiff's purpose in the use of its farm 
must be ascertained from its conduct — its acts and the declarations 
accompanying them" (Mount Hermon Boys' School v. Gill, 145 Mass. 
at 148). In other words, it is the purpose of the college, in the use to 
which it puts its property, and not the purpose of the occupant (except 
in so far as his purpose coincides with that of the college) that we are 
to scrutinize in deciding this question. So this Court, on inquiring 
into the purpose for which lodging-houses, let by a charitable institu- 
tion were occupied, decided that it was for the purpose of profit or 
investment. (Chapel of Good Shepherd v. Boston, 120 Mass. 212.) 

The purposes for which Harvard College was incorporated are set 
forth in its charter in the following language: — 

Whereas, through the good hand of God, many well-devoted persons have 
been, and daily are, moved and stirred to give and bestow sundry gifts, lega- 
cies, lands, and revenues, for the advancement of all good literature, arts, and 
sciences, in Harvard College, in Cambridge, in the County of Middlesex, and 
to the maintenance of the President and Fellows, and for all accommodations 
of buildings, and all other necessary provisions that may conduce to the edu- 
cation of the EngUsh and Indian youth of this country in knowledge and godli- 
ness, — 

It is therefore ordered and enacted by this Court and the authority thereof, 
that for the furthering of so good a work, and for the purposes aforesaid, from 
henceforth that the said College in Cambridge, in Middlesex, in New England, 
shall be a Corporation, consisting of seven persons, to wit, etc. 

Thus the main purpose is "the advancement of all good literature, 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 209 

arts, and sciences in Harvard College" and "the education of the. . . 
youth of this country in knowledge and godliness." But this great 
purpose requires for its accomplishment various instrumentalities, 
various intermediate steps or means, and the acquirement and use of 
each one of these instrumentalities, the accomplishment of each one of 
these intermediate steps, becomes part of the main purpose which it is 
designed to assist in effecting. This would be true even if the college 
charter were silent as to the manner or means of effecting the main 
purpose; for the ultimate purpose characterizes each intermediate 
step, and thus the necessary means become part of the purpose. 

This is exactly what the college charter declares, for among the 
"aforesaid purposes" it enumerates "the maintenance of the Presi- 
dent and Fellows, and for all accommodations of buildings and all other 
necessary 'provisions." After this general declaration of the purposes ' 
for which the college is incorporated, it particularizes some of the 
*' necessary provisions," of which the following deserve particular 
attention: — 

And the President and Fellows, or the major part of them, from time to 
time, may meet and choose such officers and servants for the College, and 
make such allowance to them, and them also to remove, and after death or 
removal, to choose such others, and to make from time to time such orders 
and by-laws for the better ordering and carrying on the work of the College, 
as they shall think fit. . . . 

And for the better ordering of the government of said College and Corpora- 
tion: Be it enacted, etc. . . .And that all the aforesaid transactions shall tend 
to and for the use and behoof of the President, Fellows, scholars, and officers of 
the said College, and for all accommodations of buildings, books, and all other 
necessary provisions and furnitures as may be for the advancement and educa- 
tion of youth in all manner of good literature, arts and sciences. 

For two centuries and a half this charter of 1650 has remained to 
this day "the venerable source of all collegiate authority." And 
notwithstanding the great alterations in the mode of life of the com- 
munity, the great enlargement of the range, and improvements in the 
methods, of education, the enormous increase in the number of stu- 
dents and instructors, and the changes which two hundred and fifty 
years have wrought in the social life of the college, it has proved to 
be a sufficient source, mainly because of the wise elasticity given to it 
by its framers in making its corporate purposes include all necessary 
provisions and making its president and fellows the sole judge of what 
is necessary "for the better ordering and carrying on the work of the 



210 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

college"; and never yet has this Court sought to narrow the charter 
purposes of the incorporation, or to limit the charter authority of its 
government in deciding what are "necessary provisions" for accom- 
plishing those purposes. 

On the contrary, in the case of the Massachusetts General Hos[)ital 
V. Somerville, 101 Mass. 319, this Court in the case of an institution 
whose charter is less explicit in granting a like discretion to the govern- 
ing board, recognized and declared the doctrine for which we are here 
contending, in the following language: — 

Wells, J. The plaintiff is a benevolent institution, incorporated within 
this Commonwealth. By Gen. Sts. c. 11, par. 5, cl. 3, "the real estate belong- 
ing to such institutions, occupied by them or their officers for the purposes for 
which they were incorporated," is exempted from taxation. 

The statute contains no limitation of the amount of real estate that may 
be thus held exempt from taxation; and we know of no authority under which, 
or rule by which, the Court can affix any such limitation. The only condition 
upon which the exemption depends is the proviso as to the purposes for which 
the real estate is occupied. 

In construing and applying this proviso, the Court cannot restrict it to the 
limit of necessity. The statute does not indicate such an intention on the 
part of the Legislature; and we do not think that any considerations of public 
policy require us to confine the exemption to narrower limits than the terms 
of the siatute fairly imply. What lands are reasonably required, and what 
uses of land will promote the purposes for which the institution was incorpo- 
rated, must be determined by its own officers. The statute leaves it to be 
so determined, by omitting to provide any other mode. In the absence of 
anything to show abuse, or otherwise to impeach their determination, it is 
sufficient that the lands are intended for, and in fact appropriated to, those 
purposes ... The presumption is in favor of their judgment, and it requires 
more than mere difference of opinion upon a matter of opinion especially con- 
fided to them to overcome that presumption. 

We submit furthermore, that every piece of real property which is 
put to a legitimate use by the college, or to a use authorized by its 
charter and statutes, must be used for the purposes for which the 
college was incorporated or for the purpose of getting an income from 
it; and every piece of real estate owned by the college must be held 
either for the purposes for which it was incorporated, or for the purpose 
of investment, or it may be held temporarily unused or unoccupied 
awaiting its later appropriation to one or the other of these purposes. 
The college has a right to invest its funds in real estate to an unlimited 
extent for the purpose of producing in income with which to carry on 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 211 

the work of the college, or to carry out the purposes for which it was 
incorporated; but it has no right, for instance, to run a hospital ex- 
clusively for the general public. It has a right, however, to run a 
hospital for its students, if its governing body decide that to be necessary 
for their well-being. It has no right to maintain a gymnasium, a 
playground, a boat-house, a church, an art museum, or assembly 
halls for the exclusive use of the public, but all of these institutions 
in Cambridge for the use of the students and officers of the colleges are 
clearly authorized, though the college derives no income from them, 
because although some of them probably never entered into the minds 
of the founders of the college, they are considered necessary in every 
well-regulated colbge, because of the great changes that time has 
wrought in the scope and methods of an educational institution; 
and therefore they come well within the "necessary provisions" of 
the college charter. We take it to be clear, then, that every piece of 
real estate of the college that is legally put to any use, is used either for 
investment or for the purposes for which the college was incorporated. 
And to determine whether a piece of property is exempt from taxation, 
the inquiry is, for w^hich of these purposes is it used, the purpose of 
investment, or for college purposes? If for investment, this Court 
has held it is taxable; if for college purposes, it is not taxable. 

Before the Williams College case this was the test and the form of 
inquiry employed and announced by this Court. Thus in Wesleyan 
Academy v. Wilbraham, 99 Mass. 599, the question being whether 
a farm used by an educational institution solely to raise produce for a 
boarding-house kept by the institution, to supply board to the students 
at its actual cost, was taxable, Chapman, J., says: — 

It does not appear that any profit is made by the plaintiffs out of what is 
furnished to the boarders; but an account is kept, and the cost of the produc- 
tion is reckoned, and enters into the price of board. The object of the plain- 
tiffs is to furnish the students with cheap board; and this is one method of 
cheapening it, the whole benefit of the arrangement being allowed to them. 
So far ?s these students are concerned, it is a boarding-school, and in respect 
to board, as well as school-rooms, apparatus, and tuition, the ultimate purpose 
is to furnish cheap education. 

If the boarding-house and farm had been rented to a boarding-house keeper, 
the case would have been like that above cited. It would be the same if the 
plaintiffs carried on their farm and sold the produce at its market price for 
the use of the students, in order to make a profit as farmers or as dealers in 
milk and vegetables. But as it is managed, the object not being to make a 



212 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

profit to the funds of the institution, but to benefit the students, it is as really 
used for the purpose for which the institution was incorporated as the build- 
ings and school apparatus. 

So in Massachusetts General Hospital v. Somerville the Court gives 
the following reason for holding that property would be exempt, 
although rent was paid I:)}' the occupant and received by the institution, 
saying that the exemption would attach: — 

If. . ..the rent was paid and received in the manner stated as a convenient 
mode of adjusting the compensation of the person so employed, and not as the 
income or fruit of an estate granted.. . .By the ruling of the Court below, as 
we understand it, the question was made to turn upon the single fact of the 
payment and receipt of rent. This we think was erroneous. 

So the bare fact that rent was paid and received does not prove that 
the property is used for investment, nor is it inconsistent with the fact 
that it is used for the purposes for which the institution was incorpo- 
rated. 

In the case of Chapel of the Good Shepherd v. Boston, as we have 
seen above, the lodging-houses were held not to be exempt because 
the statute "did not make the purpose of investment and profit, for 
which these rooms were improved and used, a charitable or religious 
purpose in any legal respect." 

In Mount Hermon Boys' School v. Gill, 145 Mass. 139, where it 
was the question whether the statute exempted from taxation a farm 
and buildings thereon, consisting of two farm-houses, a wood-house, 
two barns, two sheds, two tobacco-barns, and a milk-house, belonging 
to a school incorporated under Public Statutes, chap. 115, for the 
"education of boys," and worked mainly by the scholars, the produce 
being used to board the scholors and the surplus sold at market rates, 
the same test was applied, namely : is the property used for investment 
or not? 

Knowlton, J. Was this farm practically used to teach the boys agriculture, 
and give them physical training, and furnish them manual labor as a part of 
their education? Was it used to furnish supplies directly to this boarding- 
school, and so lessen the cost of education there? Or was it, on the other 
hand, used to produce revenue, and earn income which might afterwards be ex- 
pended for the school? It seems to us that the farm and the property upon 
it were used in the legitimate management of the school, directly to ac- 
complish its purposes, and not to obtain money for subsequent use in 
accomplishing them. The fact that products were sold is a circumstance im- 
portant only so far as it characterizes the use. We think that the sales were 
merely incidental to a use for the purposes of the institution. 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 213 

From this we see that it is not inconsistent with the right to exemp- 
tion that some income or pecuniary profit is incidentally derived from 
the use of the property, if the main or immediate purpose of the insti- 
tution is to use it for the purpose for which it was incorporated. 

In the case of Salem Lyceum v. Salem, 154 Mass. 15, where the 
Court held the main purpose to be to get a profit, this principle was 
declared in the following language: — 

W. Allen. J. The exemption from taxation does not extend to estate 
owned by the plaintiff, and allowed by it to be occupied by others, with the 
purpose of deriving income to expend in diffusing knowledge and promoting 
intellectual improvement in Salem. Those are the purposes for which the 
estate must be occupied by the plaintiff itself to exempt it from taxation. If 
the principal occupation is by the plaintiff for those purposes, occasional and 
incidental use for other purposes might not render it liable to taxation; but 
when the substantial use and occupation is for the purpose of deriving income 
from it, it makes no difference if that income is used to provide a course of 
lectures once a year in the hall. 

The decisions of the Court in the two cases of New England Hospital 
V. Boston, 113 Mass. 518, and Trinity Church, 118 Mass. 164, are also 
in accordance with this rule, though the rule is not stated in the opin- 
ions. In the latter case a few piles had been driven into the ground 
preparatory to erecting a house of religious worship; in the former, 
an architect had been employed to draw plans for a hospital, and had 
viewed the ground preparatory to building; in both cases, the Court 
held that the lands were occupied for the purposes for which the 
institutions were incorporated. 

The next case in which this question arose is that of Williams College 
V. Williamstown, 167 Mass. 505, and here it seems to us we have an 
entire departure from the rule laid down in all prior cases by this 
Court for ascertaining whether or not the property in question is 
occupied for the purpose for which the institution was founded. We 
doubt whether it is so much the decision in that case as it is the reasons 
given in the opinion of the majority of the Court that has caused the 
assessors of almost every town in the Commonwealth which contains 
a literary, benevolent, charitable, or scientific institution, to change 
the settled policy of years by assessing for the first time in their history 
every piece of real estate belonging to those institutions, that is not 
used as a direct instrument or as an indispensable requisite for edu- 
cating the young, or curing the sick, or bestowing charity upon the 



214 EXKMPTIOX FROM TAXATION! 

poor. And we have great doubt whether this Court ever intended 
that the decision in that case should serve as a ground for changing 
the settled policy of the Commonwealth and of the cities and towns 
for over sixty years. But if we bear in mind that heretofore the test 
a]>i)Iicd by the Court was whether or not the property was used as an 
investment and that the mere payment antl receipt of rent for the 
property, or the receipt of some pecuniary profit therefrom, was not 
necessarily decisive of that question, we must admit that there was an 
entirely different rule announced in the following language of the Court 
in the Williams College case: — 

The most important contention of the respondents is that these occupants 
were tenants at will of the estates respectively, and that the occupation was 
for the purpose of a residence, and not for the purposes for which the college 
was incorporated. A majority of the Court are of opinion that this is the 
true view to take of the facts found by the commissioner, and of the evi- 
dence .... 

In the present case the occupants were each in the sole occupation of the 
premises, and the occupation was for strictly private purposes, and the control 
of the premises during the occupation was with them. That the rent was 
paid by a deduction made by the college monthly from the salary, instead of 
being paid directly to the college is immaterial. 

It may be that the Court was of opinion that Williams College had 
let these houses to its officials mainly for the rent it was getting for 
them, as an investment of its surplus funds, but it has not so stated 
and we doubt whether the facts would justify such an inference. We 
think it would be in accordance with the decision, and reasoning, in 
Massachusetts General Hospital v. Somerville to hold that these houses 
were not occupied for the purpose of investment. 

In holding that the occupation was for the purpose of a residence 
"a strictly private purpose" and therefore not for the purpose for 
which the college was incorporated, we contend that the Court has in 
the first place ignored an incontestable fact of which it ought to take 
judicial notice, because it is part of the definition of the word " college," 
and is also a part of the history of this country and of England ; namely, 
that the providing of residences for its instructors and students is 
within the scope of the purposes of the college. It has been the practice 
of every one of the great colleges from the time of their foundation, as 
w^e have attempted to show above; and there are few, if any, colleges 
in this country or any other country, where it is not the practice at the 



HARA^^RD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 215 

present time, which of itself goes to show that it has proved a wise and 
sahitary practice, if not one absolutely necessary for the proper dis- 
cipline and supervision of the students. 

In the second place, it has ignored the rule of construction announced 
in the case of Massachusetts General Hospital v. Somerville which 
recognized the right of the governing body of the institution to decide 
what uses of its property will promote the purposes for which the 
institution was incorporated. 

In construing and applying this proviso, the Court cannot restrict it to the 
limit of necessity .... What lands are reasonably required and what uses of 
land will promote the purposes for which the institution was incorporated, 
must be determined by its own officers. 

See Peirce v. Boston & Lowell R. R. Co., 141 Mass. 481. 

In the third place, in saying that the buildings were occupied for 
the purpose of residences, it is evident that the Court has in mind the 
purpose of the occupants and not of the college, and they have there- 
fore departed from the rule founded on sound reason and the declara- 
tion of this Court, as we have already seen, that it is the institution's 
conduct in regard to its own property, its own acts, and the declarations 
accompanying them showing its purpose that render its property 
taxable or untaxable. The purpose of the occupant may be to acquire 
a residence, but we submit that his purpose cannot determine the 
taxability of the institution's property. The real question is. What 
is the purpose in the mind of the governing body of the institution in 
having the property occupied in that particular way; namely, what 
is the purpose of its occupation as a residence by that particular officer ? 
If it is put by the college to a legitimate use, or one authorized by its 
charter, that use must be either for the purpose of investment or for 
the purpose for which it was incorporated, as we have seen above; 
it must be for the rent it gets from it, or for the more efficient service 
it will get from its officer by putting him in such close relation to the 
institution and students that he will be the better able to perform the 
services w^iich he has to render to the college, or for some other advan- 
tage to its educational ends which it may get from this form of occu- 
pation. 

To say that property is occupied for the purpose of a residence is 
to describe the kind of occupancy rather than the purpose of it. If 
we should apply the reasoning of the Williams College case to the 



216 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

other cases decided by this Court, we should have to say in Wesleyan 
Academy v. Wilbrahain, that the property was occupied for the pur- 
pose of a farm; in Massachusetts General Hospital v. Somerville, 
that the land was occupied for the purpose of keeping it vacant, and 
the house for the purpose of a residence; in New England Hospital 
V. Boston, and Trinity Church v. Boston, that the property was used 
for the purpose of building upon it at some future time; in Mt. Her- 
mon Boys' School v. Gill, that the land was used for the purpose of 
a farm and the houses for the purpose of residences, for storing wood, 
tobacco, and other farm products and for a dairy, all strictly private 
purposes; and as none of these purposes come within the purposes 
for which any of these institutions were incorporated, that the several 
properties were taxable. But the Court held that the properties were 
exempt because the questions which they asked and answered were: 
For what purpose is this land used by the institution as a farm, that 
land held vacant, and these others occupied for building? For what 
purpose is this building, used by the corporation as a residence, that 
used as a barn or shed, and this other for a dairy ? So, therefore, 
we repeat, that the question to be answered in the Williams College 
case was, for what purpose were these houses used by the college as 
residences ? 

This case, however, is clearly distinguishable from the case of 
Williams College in several important particulars, some of which we 
have already pointed out. So that even if we accept the reasoning 
and the decision of the Williams College case, we can still claim with 
confidence that the several houses and lots in this case are exempt 
under the statute. 

As to the house and lot No. 17 Kirkland Street, occupied as a stu- 
dents' dormitory and a dining-room, no such occupation was in 
question in the Williams College case, but the Court there admits that 
"if a professor lived in rooms in the dormitory of a college which re- 
mained under the general control of the college, and a deduction of a 
certain sum of money on account of such occupation was made from his 
salary," the property would be exempt. We have already shown that 
this building and lot are under the general control of the college, and 
that none of the occupants can be described as tenants or lessees of 
these premises. We have seen that the first building of Harvard Col- 
lege, finished in 1639, contained a dormitory or rooms for students 
and instructors, and a dining-room, and that dining-rooms and dor- 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 217 

mitories have ever since been maintained by the college, and so far 
as we know there never was a college without them. This is the 
first attempt ever made in this Commonwealth to tax college dor- 
mitories or dining-rooms. Under a substantially similar statute in 
Connecticut, an attempt was made at New Haven to tax both. The 
Supreme Court of Connecticut in a very learned opinion has held 
that dormitories and dining-halls are exempt. 

Yale University v. Town of New Haven, 71 Conn, 316. 

In view of the intimation above quoted from the Williams College 
case, as to college dormitories, and the fact that this Court has al- 
ready held that a farm worked by an educational institution for the 
purpose of furnishing products to be consumed in the students' din- 
ing-room is exempt (Wesleyan Academy v. Wilbraham, 99 Mass. 
599; Mount Hermon Boys' School v. Gill, 145 Mass. 139), we deem 
it unnecessary to argue further in support of the exemption of 17 
Kirkland Street. 

We have seen that the second building erected by Harvard College 
was the president's house. This was erected from funds furnished 
the college by the Colony of Massachusetts Bay at a time when neither 
the college nor the Colony had any surplus funds or property to invest 
for the purpose of an income. We have also seen that the govern- 
ment of the province, at times when the college had no means of its 
own to devote to such purposes, appointed committees to procure or 
hire a suitable place for a residence for the president and his family, 
and appropriated so large a sum as £1000 to build Wadsworth House. 
As to No. 17 Quincy Street, the present official residence of the presi- 
dent, we have seen that it was built from funds specially left to the 
college for that purpose, and therefore the college has no right to let 
it to any one else. Unlike any of the houses in the WiUiams College 
case, the president, as we have stated above, has no lease of said house 
and pays no rent therefor; he is not in sole occupation, because the 
land about it is in the occupation of the college, and part of the house 
is at times occupied by other college officers in carrying on the w^ork 
of the college, and is used by the president while attending to various 
colleo^e duties. College servants have a right to enter upon the grounds 
assessed with this house and to repair the house. The president 
occupies the house only so long as he performs the duty of the office 
of president; he therefore occupies it solely by reason of service, and 



218 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

therefore, as laid down in Massachusetts General Hospital v. Somer- 
ville, 101 Mass. at 32G, he occupies it tor the purposes for which the 
college was incorporated. 

The occupants of 25 and 38 Quincy Street and 11 Frisbie Place are 
deans as well as professors. If the dwelling-house in which the presi- 
dent lives should be held to be exempt because it is essentially a col- 
lege purpose to have and furnish a house for the president, then as 
the deans "are charged each with a portion of the administrative 
duties which formerly devolved exclusively on the president" (Report, 
p. 11), it is equally a legitimate college purpose to furnish official 
residences for them. 

In other respects the six houses occupied by the professors need 
not be considered separately, as the facts and circumstances in regard 
to each are substantially the same. The occupation of these houses 
and lots differs from that of the houses in the Williams College case, 
in that none of the occupants are in sole occupation, the college, 
other college officers, or the students occupying parts of each for 
some time each day. 

We have pointed out already that these professors cannot be called 
tenants or lessees, as they have no lease of their premises; but even 
if they were tenants at will, they still pay no rent and occupy the prem- 
ises solely by reason of the service they render, and the property is 
therefore occupied by them officially and for the purposes for which 
the college was incorporated. The following facts are agreed to in 
regard to each: "When his salary is voted in the fall of each year, 
it is fixed at a certain sum 'and the use of house S900' (or other sum), 
otherwise Professor .... pays no rent and has no other agreement for 
his use and occupation of said house, but uses it as said professor 
and dean" (in cases where he is dean as well as professor). 

It will be noticed that this is quite a different arrangement in legal 
effect from that in the Williams College case. There the salaries of 
the professors were fixed at a certain sum, the value of the occupation 
was fixed, and they were paid monthly in cash one-twelfth of such 
salary less one-twelfth of the value of the occupation (167 Mass. at 
507). In that case we have an obligation on the part of the college 
to pay a fixed sum as salary for services rendered, and on the part 
of the officers an agreement to pay a fixed amount as rent or com- 
pensation for the use of the house. The college paid a salary, and 
gave the use of a house; the officers rendered service for the salary, 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 219 

and paid rent for the house. In our case there is no rent paid; the 
college pays a salary, and gives the use of a house valued at a cer- 
tain amount in return for services rendered, as it did with the Dun- 
ster house; the services rendered are therefore paid for in part in 
cash, and in part by allowing the officer to use the house. The house 
is occupied by reason of the services rendered, and not by reason of 
rent. There can be no doubt that the college has a right to devote 
its real estate as well as its cash to such use; the college charter au- 
thorizes the president and fellows "to make such allowance to them," 
the officers, "as they shall think fit." Now it cannot be denied that 
the money which the college pays as salary to its professor is used 
for the purpose for which it was incorporated. It is just as certain 
that the real estate which the college "allows" him in part payment 
for his services is devoted to the same purpose. 

It accords with our contention that the Supreme Court of Con- 
necticut within a year has decided that two houses furnished by Yale 
College for the officers of its observatory are exempt from taxation, 
under a statute exempting "buildings or portions of buildings exclu- 
sively occupied as colleges." 

Yale University v. New Haven, 71 Conn. 316. 

V. 

Practical and Legislative Construction 

We have thus far seen what the judicial interpretations of the 
statute under discussion have been up to the present time, but we find 
in the practice of the cities and towns continued for more than sixtv 
years, and in the three enactments since the Revised Statutes of the 
statute in question by the General Court of the Commonwealth, both 
a practical and a legislative construction of that statute which deserve 
careful consideration, for such interpretations have always been 
given the greatest weight by this Court. 

A cotemporaneous is generally the best construction of a statute. It gives 
the sense of a community, of the terms made use of by a Legislature. If there 
is ambiguity in the language, the understanding and application of it, when 
the statute first comes into operation, sanctioned by long acquiescence on the 
part of the Legislature and judicial tribunals, is the strongest evidence that 
it has been rightly explained in practice. A construction under such circum- 



220 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

stances becomes established law; and after it has been acted upon for a cen- 
tury nothing but legislative power can constitutionally effect a change. 
Parker, C. J. Packard v. Richardson, 17 Mass. at 144. 
On these legislative and judicial practical expositions of the declaration in 
favor of trials in the vicinity we might repose with confidence, for contem- 
poraneous and continued constructions of an instrument, whether by express 
judicial decisions or uniform practice, are admitted to be a legitimate ground 
of interpretation. 

Parker, C. J. Commonwealth v. Parker, 2 Pick, at 557. 

Gray, C. J., in commenting upon the reenactments of the Statute 
of 1817, chap. 142, in the Revised and the General Statutes, says: — 

They have been constantly applied in practice, and repeatedly expounded 
by this Court, without a doubt of their validity being suggested, for nearly 
sixty years. After so long a practical construction and acquiescence by the 
Legislature, by the Courts, and by all parties to judicial proceedings, it would 
require a very clear case to warrant the court in setting them aside as uncon- 
stitutional. 

Holmes v. Hunt, 122 Mass. at 516. 

These houses, or houses similarly occupied, have belonged to Har- 
vard College ever since the passage of the Revised Statutes, but never 
till 1897 has the city of Cambridge made any attempt to tax them; 
they have for more than sixty years been considered and treated as 
exempted property under the exempting clause of the Revised Statutes 
and the subsequent enactments. And not till 1895 did the assessors 
of Williamstown or any other city or town, with the sanction of this 
Court, ta.\ property occupied as the Williams College houses were 
occupied. If this course were due to a misconstruction of the statute, 
if it were not in accordance with the real legislative intent, it is hardly 
possible that the I^egislature would not have corrected the error by 
an amendment declaring the true intent and meaning of the act. But 
instead of any such amendment, we find the General Court, in face of 
this practical interpretation put upon its act, reenacting the same 
statute in the same terms in 1860, in 1881, and in 1889. We submit 
that these reenactments amount to legislative declarations that the 
practical construction of this statute by the cities and towns is the true 
construction, and only an act of the Legislature can change it. 

But before the General Court shall change this construction of the 
exempting statute, or narrow the scope of the college, or deny it that 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 221 

encouragement which has at all times been extended to it, the Legis- 
lature will have become unmindful of the sacred duty imposed upon it 
by the Constitution of the Commonwealth, which in the same breath 
created the General Court and gave renewed life to Harvard College, 
for not only does the Constitution of Massachusetts confirm to Harvard 
College all its franchises, property, and immunities, but it admonishes 
all future legislatures and magistrates to cherish all seminaries, and 
especially the university at Cambridge, in the following language: — 

It shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of 
this Commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, 
and all seminaries of them, especially the university at Cambridge: 



to encourage. . . .immunities for the promotion of . . . .arts, sciences, etc. 
Constitution of Mass., chap. 5, sect. 2. 

This duty is imposed as solemnly upon this Court as upon the 
Legislature. 

SAMUEL HOAR, 
WILLIAM SULLIVAN, 

for the Petitioners. 



BRIEF FOR ASSESSORS OF CAMBRIDGE 



Construction of Statute at Issue 

The issue involves a judicial construction of Chap. 469, sect. 5, 
clause 3 of the Statutes of 1889 as applicable to the several properties 
occupied as above described. 

The section under consideration is as follows, exempting 

Third. The personal property of literary, benevolent, charitable, and 
scientific institutions and temperance societies incorporated within this Com- 
monwealth, and the real estate belonging to such institutions occupied by 
them or their officers for the purposes for which they were incorporated. 

The general law (Public Statutes, chap. 11, sect. 2) explicitly sub- 
jects to taxation all property "not expressly exempted." 



222 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

Exemptions, thus beino; an exception to the general rule, are regarded 
as in derogation of ecjual rights, and the tendency of the courts is to 
construe them strictly. 

Redemptorist Fathers v. Boston, 129 Mass. 178. 
Mt. Hermon Boys' School v. Gill, 14,5 Mass. 144. 
Cincinnati College v. State, 19 Ohio 115. 

It is a familiar principle that no exemption trom taxation can be allowed 
except upon its being fairly shown that it was intended by the terms of the 
Statutes. 

Third Congregational Society v. Springfield, 147 Mass. 396 



Hlstory of this Legislation 

Prior to Revised Statutes of 1836, certain exemptions had been 
provided by law for Harvard College, with certain exceptions in favor 
of local taxation in Cambridge. 

Harvard College v. Boston, 104 Mass. 489, citing. 
Harvard College, v. Kettell, 16 Mass. 204. 
Statutes 1821, Chap. 107, Sect. 6. 
Statutes 1830, Chap. 151, Sect. 6. 

As the Court, Wells, J., says: — 

This course of legislation led to the adoption of the qualified general exemp- 
tion contained in Revised Statutes, chap. 7, sect. 5, which was as follows: — 

The following property and polls shall be exempted from taxation. 

Secondhf. The personal property of all literary, benevolent, charitable, 
and scientific institutions incorporated within this Commonwealth, and such 
real estate belonging to such institutions as shall actually be occupied by them 
or by the officers of said institutions for the purposes for which they were 
incorporated. 

This was subsequently reenacted in General Statutes, chap. 11, 
sect. 5, clause 3, which was as follows: — 

Third. The personal property of literary, benevolent, charitable, and 
scientific institutions incorporated within this Commonwealth and the real 
estate belonging to such institutions, occupied by them or their officers for 
the purposes for which they were incorporated. 

This statute appears in Public Statutes, chap. 11, sect. 5, clause 3, 
in the following form to wit: — 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 223 

Third. The personal property of literary, benevolent, charitable, and 
scientific institutions incorporated within this Commonwealth and the real 
estate belonging to such institutions, occupied by them or their officers for 
the purposes for which they were incorporated; but such real estate, w'hen 
purchased by such a corporation wath ? view to removal thereto, shall not, 
prior to such removal be exempt for a longer period than two years; and the 
real estate of such corporations formed under general laws shall not be exempt 
in any case where part of the income or profits of their business is divided 
among their members or stockholders, or where any portion of such estate is 
used or appropriated for other than literary, educational, benevolent, chari- 
table, scientific, or religious purposes. 

This last statute is substantially the same as the Statute of 1889, 
chap. 465. sect. 1 before cited (page 1). 

It is apparent therefore that the Pievised Statutes codified the existing 
laws and limited the exemptions of real estate belonging to corporations 
as the plaintiff to such as "shall actually be occupied by them or by 
the officers of said institutions for the purposes for which they were 
incorporated." 

That the intent of the Legislature by this provision of the Revised 
Statutes and the subsequent later provisions as now found in said 
chap. 465 of the Acts of 1889, was to restrict the terms of the then (1835) 
existing law is apparent from the construction recently placed upon 
the statute in question in Williams College v. Williamstown, 167 
Mass. 507. 

But it may be said that this was not the intent of the Legislature for 
the reason that subsequent to the revision of 1835, to wit: by Statutes 
1840, chap. 28; Statutes 1850, chap. 22; and by Statutes 1860, chap. 
45, when the Legislature passed statutes to ascertain the ratable estate 
within this Commonwealth it exempted from the operation and assess- 
ment of the State tax the estates belonging to Harvard. 

So Justice Wells seems to have said in his opinion in Harvard Col- 
lege V. Boston, supra 488, in contradistinction as the defendant claims 
to the later decision in Williams College v. Williamstown, supra. 

The Statutes of 1840, 1850, and 1860 before cited are substantially 
the same as Statutes 1820, chap. 64, and 1830 (1831?), chap. 130, 
cited by Justice Wells. 

The last named statute provides that "the assessors for each city, 
town, district, or other place within this Commonwealth for the year 
1831 shall on or before the first day of October next take and lodge 
in the Secretary's office a true and perfect list conformably to the list 



224 EXEMI'TIOX FROM TAXATION. 

hereto annexed .... of all ratable estate both real unci personal lying 
within their eity, towns, distriets, and other places )iot exevipted by 
law from paying State taxes, expressing by whom oceujiied or possessed, 
particularly mentioning dwelling houses, etc. . . . 

"And the said assessors in taking the said valuation shall designate 
the different improvements of land and return the list in the following 
manner ... excepting all the estates belonging to Harvard, Williams, 
and Amherst Colleges, and to incorporated theological institutions and 
academies, and also the estate belonging to the Massachusetts General 
Hospital and improved for the purposes of that institution." 

This exception in these various statutes has reference only to the 
real subject matter of that clause "the distinguishing of the different 
improvements of the lurid" next to be more specifically stated, and did 
not relieve the assessors from taking and lodging w'ith the Secretary 
a true and perfect list of all ratable estate both real and personal . . . 
iiot exempted by law frovi paying State taxes. 

Hence it does not appear from these statutes, as may be claimed, 
that the legislative purpose and intention was to exclude from taxation 
the houses of presidents, deans, and professors owned by the institutions 
and occupied by such officers and their families. 

Omissions to Tax 

The omission to tax these properties for years before (top of page 6 
of Report) cannot add anything to the argument in favor of further 
exemption, if such exemption has all the while not been justified in 
law. Such a doctrine of prescription as this does not seem to be 
known in law. 

Question at Issue 

It being admitted that the plaintiff is one of the corporations named 
in the section of the statutes now under consideration, the general 
question, as applicable to all the properties named in the Re])ort, is 
whether or not such occupation of the houses and land contiguous 
thereto is by the Corporation, or its officers and for the purposes for 
which the plaintiff was incorporated. 

Williams College r. Williamstown, 167 Mass. 507. 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 225 

If the exeaiption is not applicable to the houses neither does it 
apply to the several pieces of land appurtenant to the houses. 
Trinity Church v. Boston, 118 Mass. 167. 

The removal of fences and monuments about and connected with 
Nos. 11, 17, 25, 37 Quincy Street (Report, p. 4) did not thereby 
separate the houses from the lands respectively appurtenant thereto. 

For convenience and to secure a uniformity in the appearance of 
the grounds may have been the purpose and reasons for the removal 
of such fences and monuments. 

Officers of the College 

It is admitted that the presidents, professors, and instructors are 
officers of the college. It is so decided in Williams College v. Williams- 
town, 167 Mass. 507. 

Meaning of "Occupied" 

"Occupied" denotes continuance and full possession. "Occupied 
by" a corporation denotes a corporate or official occupancy, and not 
a personal occupancy by one who is such an officer, though only so 
does he become an eligible occupant; and "occupied for" a special 
purpose denotes the continuous use the realty is put to, its primary 
function, the direct purposes to which it is devoted, i. e., a store, 
residence, bakery, dormitory, laundry, refectory, mu?ic hall, school- 
house, lecture or recitation halls, play rooms, etc., but not a casual or 
incidental use, or a collateral purpose, that the occupancy may sub- 
serve. 

And the exempted realty is also clearly limited to and conditioned upon an 
occupancy whose purpose is that for which the included institution was incor- 
porated, and the very purpose which includes it among the favored institutions ; 
that is, the purpose of the occupancy and the including purposes must be the 
same. 

To relieve from taxation the property must be shown to have been 
necessarily occupied by the institution or its officers for the purpose 
for which the institution was incorporated. The court has manifested 
no inclination to enlarge the exemption. 

Massachusetts General Hospital v. Somerville, 101 Mass. 321. 



226 EXEMPTION FROM T.\XATION 

"Occupied for" means the primary purpose of the occupancy, not 
something; incidental, as in case of a parsonage. The occupant may 
at times worship, yet the primary purpose of the occupation is that of 
a residence, and is taxable. 

A printing establis'hment built upon land belonging to the college 
but separate from other land of the college, in which books are nianu- 
factured, to be purchased and used exclusively by the students of the 
college, is not occupied for the purposes for which the college was 
incorporated. 

The primary purpose of the ]>rinting establishment is the manu- 
facture of books, though the use to which the books may be put may 
be of assistance in the education of the college students. The primary 
purpose of the college is the advancement of learning and education. 

As there may be several distinct tenements under the same roof, — 
one may be under the other, — one may be side of another (Proprietors 
of Meeting House in Lowell v. Lowell, 1 Met. 541); so there may be 
different and distinct occupancies of the same house belonging to a 
college; but the occupancy must be either one or the other, either for 
secular or college purposes; if both, the exemption cannot apply. 

It must at least be that the dominant purpose of the occupation by 
the president and professors (and of the house 17 Kirkland Street) 
was not private, but that for \\hich the college was incorporated. 
(Holmes, J., in Amherst College v. Amherst, 173 Mass. 2.33.) 

Manner of Occupancy 

in reference to the president's house and the houses occupied by 
the other professors and their families, and following the reasoning 
in Mount Hermon Boys' School v. Gill, 145 Mass. 148, we must see 
what w^as the purpose of the occupancy of these houses, — was it for 
literary, educational, benevolent purposes, or in the language of the 
constitution "for the encouragement of arts, sciences, and all good 
literature," or was it for their (the president's and professors') own 
interests and convenience and that of their families. (Constitution of 
Massachusetts, chaj). 5, sect. 1, art. 1.) 

It has been held that rooms occupied by tenants for hire of a cor- 
poration established for charitable uses are not exempt, although the 
income derived therefor was used for such purposes. 

Trustees of Chapel of Good Shepherd v. Boston, 120 Mass 212. 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 227 

This decision was made on the ground that such a use and occupa- 
tion was not an occupation by the corporation for the purposes for 
Avhich it was created; the occupancy was for living purposes. 

What distinction can there be in the cases at issue in which the 
houses were occupied by the president and professors with their 
fainihes ? 

Was not the real substantial use by them in each case for living 
purposes very much in excess of that for strictly college purposes ? 
Even the draAving-room and hall, when not in use for strictly college 
purposes, were occupied as part of the living rooms. 

The principal use was not that for college purposes, following the 
decision in Salem Lyceum v. Salem, 154 Mass. IG, 17. 

The fact of occupancy by an officer of the college of a certain portion 
of a house does not create an occupancy of the whole or greater part 
of the house occupied by his family. 

The use of these several houses was not of necessity in order to enable 
the college to accomplish its work of education, but as the Report says, 
"partly for his own convenience and partly for the convenience of the 
college" (Report, pp. 5, 7, 8, 10, 11). 

So, also, as to No. 25 Quincy Street (Report, pp. 8, 9) it appears that 
the occupation thereof by the professor is for the convenience of and 
not required by the necessities of the college (Report, p. 9). 

The president and professors were also in the sole occupation of the 
respective premises used by each, although at times certain portions are 
used for college purposes. The real, substantial occupation was for 
private purposes. There is no evidence that the real control of these 
houses was other than in the occupants. It does not affect the control 
of the land connected with the houses that the same was kept in order 
by the college at the expense of the latter, under the direction of the 
college superintendent and for the most part by college employees. 
There is no evidence that the right of the occupant of any house to 
use the land adjacent to the building is at all interfered with or lessened 
in this care of the grounds or otherwise. For all that appears in the 
Report, such care and superintendence is part of the consideration 
for which the occupant renders his services. 



228 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 



Facts of Occupancy 

The agreed facts then present the seven houses and their plots as 
family residences, severally occupied by a man and his family: such 
occupants of one house being the university president and his family, 
and of the others, college officials and their families. 

Thus these occupancies exclude exemption:— 

First, as residential. 

Pierce v. Cambridge, 2 Cush. 611. 

Williams College v. Williamstown, 167 Ma.ss. 505. 

Second, as personal, private and not official. Temporary uses of 
a reception room for gatherings of any sort, social, religious, collegi- 
ate, are appropriate uses by the occupants in course of their family 
occuj>ancy, and they no more interrupt that occupancy and initiate 
another one by the guests than do like appropriate uses of a dining- 
room, chamber, or other part of the house. 



Rent as Affecting Occupancy 

The question of rent or lease or the manner of payment of the rent 
is important only as bearing upon the nature of the occupation and 
whether the occupation is in fact for the purposes for which the plain- 
tiff was incorporated. 

Pierce v. Cambridge, 2 Cush. 611. 

Massachusetts General Hospital v. Somerville, 101 Mass. 326. 
Mount Hermon Boys' School v. Gill, 145 Mass. 145. 
Williams College r. Williamstown, 167 Mass. 509. 

In "J^ustees of "Wesleyan Academy v. Wilbraham, 99 Mass. 603, 
Chapman, J., says, "In Pierce v. Cambridge, 2 Cush. 611, a con- 
struction was put upon a similar provision of the statute («'. e. simi- 
lar to chap. 11, section 5 of the General Statutes) then existing. It 
was held that although the plaintiff was a professor in Harvard Col- 
lege, yet a house belonging to the corporation was not exempt from 
taxation while he held it under a lease from them, paying rent there- 
for." Then the Court goes on to say further, "If he had occupied 
without taking a lease or paying rent, the Court say it would have 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 229 

been otherwise. It was held to be taxable, because the present 
estate was in the lessee and the corporation had only a reversionary 
interest." 

These last statements taken by themselves might seem to appear 
that the question whether or not the estate was taxable depended 
upon the fact whether or not he was paying rent therefor. 

But upon further reading of the opinion, it is a})parent that the 
decision of the Court was in reality based upon the purpose for which 
the same was occupied, or to use the language of the Court, "But 
as it (i. e., the estate in question) is managed, the object not being 
to make a profit to the funds of the institution, but to benefit the 
students, it is as really used for the purpose for which the institution 
was incorporated as the buildings, and school apparatus." (The 
italics are mine.) 

Exemption of Church Property 

So as to exemption from taxation of church property; "the ex- 
emption depends upon the use for which the building in question is 
intended and is limited by such use." 

Old South Society v. Boston, 127 Mass. 379. 

And this exemption is extended only to such part of the property 
which was used as a place of worship and for the purposes connected 
with it, such as the vestry, the furnace and the like. 

Lowell Meeting House v. Lowell, 1 Met. 158. 
Old South Society, v. Boston, supra 379. 
Trinity Church v. Boston, 118 Mass. 164. 

And does not exempt a parsonage. 

Third Congregational Society v. Springfield, 147 Mass. 396. 



Real Purpose of Occupation 

Can it be contended that a house owned by a college located sep- 
arately anywhere else than upon the ground which forms a part of 
the college yard in Cambridge, the rooms of which were used for 
different college purposes incident to the duties of the professor occu- 



230 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

pying it, "partly for his convenience and partly for the convenience 
of the plaintiff," should be exempt, because of such a use, and be- 
cause by such an occupancy the purposes of the college might be 
assisted and furthered ? 

So as to a portion of a house, like No. 37 Quincy Street, built by 
the college upon land owned by it, in some other location, occupied 
by the professor and his family; can that be said to be exempt simply 
Ijecause of such occupation ? 

Is not the occu])ation as much in one case for the purposes of in- 
corporation as in the other, or, in other words, is it not as much for 
the interests of the college, and are not the necessities of such occu- 
[)ation as apparent in one case as in the other ? That is to say, it 
is apparent the professor must have a home and live somewhere, 
otherwise he could not transact his duties as such professor; and 
for the time being, and in the performance of such duties, he is occu- 
pying his residence, and in such an occupation he is, as far as the 
prosecution of his duties is concerned, carrying out in part the pur- 
poses for which the college was incorporated, to wit: the imparting 
of knowledge to the students and the increase of learnino- to that 
extent. 

Such a rule of construction would be contrary to the rule above 
cited and cannot be sustained. 

The fact that Professor Langdell occupies the house as a pro- 
fessor of law does not change the nature of his occupancy. He may 
have a number of titles, and if he did it would not affect his occupancy, 
which is that of a residence for himself and family, no matter by what 
or how many titles he may be called or known. 

This difi'ers from the case of INlassachusetts General Hospital v. 
Somerville in this, that the building here is upon land taxed. In 
that case the land was not taxed and was exemjDt by reason of the 
manner in which it was held, and the house occupied by the person, 
who devoted his time exclusively to the care of the grounds not taxed, 
was considered by the Court as "being used as an incident only to 
the general purposes for which the land was held and occupied by 
the said person 'for reasons of convenience.'" 

So in Trustees of Wesleyan Academy v. "Wilbraham, 99 Mass. 
599-603, the land upon which the building ^^as situated was not 
taxed, and the question there was whether or not the use of the build- 
ino- by the college as a boarding house to cheapen the education of 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 231 

the students took this property out of the exemption, or whether it 
was within the purposes for which the institution was incorporated. 
The latter was held. 

So in the case of Mount Hermon Boys' School v. Gill, the distinc- 
tion as made by the Court, is whether or not the use of the barn was 
for carrying out the purposes of the incorporation, to lessen the cost 
of the education of the students. In this the parties in interest to 
be benefited, to wit: the students, were first considered. 

It would be certainly a forced construction to apply the reasoning 
of that case in behalf of the students to the case at issue. Nor does 
it appear by the Report, in any case, that the object of this use by 
the president and professors was to assist the student and make less 
the cost of his education ; on the other hand, as far as one can infer, 
it would seem that this method of occupancy, at least, so far as to 
the houses occupied by the professors and the voting of their salarv, 
fixing the same in the fall of the year at a certain sum, "and the use 
of the house" variously estimated in value in each case (pp. 7, 8, 9, 
10, 11) was an indirect method of producing revenue to the college. 



Income Derived from Property 

Assuming that the assessed value upon house and land appurte- 
nant In each case is fair, we have, in each instance, the amount saved 
on salaries and as an investment, as follows : — 

11 Quincy Street, total value house and land $19,000, use of house $750, 
about 4 per cent. 

16 Quincy Street, total value house and land $12,000, use of house $500 
about 4 per cent. 

25 Quincy Street, total value house and land $24,000, use of house $1,000 
about 4 per cent. 

37 Quincy Street, total value house and land $17,000, use of house $700 
about 4 per cent. 

38 Quincy Street, total value house and land $12,000, use of house $900 
about 7 per cent. 

11 Frisbie Place, total value house and land $18,000, use of house $700 
about 4 per cent. 

making a total revenue, on $102,000 valuation, of 14,550, nearly 
four and one half per cent, in the form of salaries. 



232 EXEMPTION :rom taxation 

Neither does the f^ift of the president's house for the presidents 
afl'ect the kind of occupancy, i. e., residential, and thus bring it with- 
in the exemption in spite of such occupancy. 

17 KiRKLAND Street 

As to No. 17 Kirkland Street, it apjiears that the first floor is used 
as a boarding house, the other floors as sleeping rooms or living 
rooms for students. It is in the occupation of students, not of the 
college, and not for educational and scientific purposes of the college. 

The reasons heretofore given in regard to the other houses apply 
with the same force to this house and land and need not be repeated. 

Conclusion 

The last clause of the section of the statute under consideration 
provides that as to corporations formed under the general laws, no 
part shall be exempt where any portion of (.he real estate is used 
other than for the purpose.3 for which the corporation was incor- 
porated. 

In the case of houses of religious worship those portions not used, 
for such are taxed (Chap. 11, sect. 5, clause 7, Public Statutes). 

The statute is silent as to such corporations as the jjlaintifT, in 
case of a use of a portion not within the exemption. The most char- 
itable and just action would be to impose a tax upon the plaintiffs 
to the extent of the property owned and not occupied by them for 
the purposes for which the plaintiffs were incorporated. This is 
what the defendants have undertaken to do in the imposition of these 
assessments. 

Therefore judgment should be entered for the defendants. 
Respectfully submitted, 

GILBERT A. A. PEVEY, 

Attorney for the Defendants. 

On January 4, 1900, the Court rendered its decision affirming the 
ptdgmcnt of the Superior Court. At the same time a decision was 
rendered in the case of Phillips Academy v. Andovcr, udiich had been 



PHILLIPS ACADEMY V. ANDOVER 233 

argued before the Harvard College case. The opinion in each case 
%vas written by Mr. Justice Morton. As many of the principles, con- 
siderations, and authorities applicable to the Harvard College case are 
stated at length in the Phillips Academy case, and are only referred to 
but not restated in the Harvard College case, it will be necessary to read 
both opinions in order to get the full statement of the law applicable to 
the latter case. These opinions are as follows: — 



TRUSTEES OF PHILLIPS ACADEMY 
vs. ANDOVER 

Opinion 

Morton, J. This case was heard on agreed facts, and the principal 
question is whether the property for which the plaintiffs were assessed 
was exempt from taxation, by virtue of Pub. St., ch. 11, sec. 5, cl. 3, 
as amended by Statute 1889, chap. 465 which provides that "the 
personal property of literary, benevolent, charitable, and scientific 
institutions and temperance societies, incorporated within this Com- 
monwealth, and the real estate belonging to such institutions occupied 
by them or their officers for the purposes for which they are incor- 
porated" shall be exempt from taxation. There can be no doubt that 
Phillips Academy is an institution within the meaning of the exempting 
clause and that, with perhaps a possible doubt in the case of Pro- 
fessor Park, the persons occupying the various houses were officers 
of the institution (WiUiams College v. Williamstown, 1(57 Mass. 505). 
A more difficult question is whether the property was occupied by 
them for the purposes for which the institution was incorporated. 

It is not easy, and perhaps not possible, to define what will constitute 
such an occupancy under all circumstances, and we shall not attempt 
it; but there are some general rules and considerations which we 
deem it proper to state notwithstanding the disposition which is made 
of this case. 

The occupancy referred to usually will result from the official con- 
nection of the officer with the institution and commonly will continue 
only so long as such connection lasts. The Legislature could have 
provided as it did formerly in the case of Harvard College (see Tax x\ct 



234 EXE.MPTIOX FROM TAXATION' 

of 1818 and j)rior and subsecjuent Tax Acts) that such occupancy of 
itself shcnild exempt the estate from taxation or even that all of the 
real estate belonging to a favored institution should be exempt. Pre- 
vious to the adoption of the Revised Statutes, this seems to have been 
the case, — with a ([ualification after a time in regard to Harvard 
College and Phillips Academy. The exemptions were incorporated 
each year in the annual tax act and the institutions exempted Avere 
described by name, except that beginning with 1801 there was in each 
act a general provision exempting academies established by the law 
of this Commonwealth. Phillips Academy came under this general 
provision, but by a proviso in the Act of 1821 (chap. 107, sec. 6) and 
in succeeding acts, it was provided (and this is the qualification re- 
ferred to above) that nothing contained in the act should "prevent 
the Town of Andover from taxing such real estate belonging to the 
Corporation of Phillips Academy situate in said town as shall not be 
under the immediate occupation and improvement of said corj^oration 
or of any person or persons connected with said corporation, exempted 
from taxation by this act." The persons who were exempted from 
taxation that were connected or likely to be connected with Phillips 
Academv were ministers of the Gospel, preceptors of academies, and 
Latin grammar school masters. These and other personal exemptions 
relating to "the president, professors, tutors, librarians, and students 
of Harvard, "Williams, and Amherst Colleges, and of all other theo- 
logical, medical, and literary institutions," were repealed by Statute 
1828, chap. 143. The effect of this repeal, so far as Phillips iVcademy 
was concerned, seems to have been to cause the omission from the 
proviso, in subsequent tax acts, of the concluding clause which had 
provided by implication that real estate belonging to the corporation 
and occupied by any person connected with it should be exempt 
from taxation. 

Bv the Re\ised Statutes, a general rule was established which 
described in a single phrase the institutions to be exempted, and 
limited the exemption to the real estate belonging to them and " actually 
occupied by them or by the officers of such institutions for the purposes 
for which they are incorporated." (Rev. Stat. chap. 7, sec. 5, cl. 2.) 
This statute, with certain additions and amendments not now material, 
has been continued by successive reenactments to the present time. 
It is manifest that under the Revised Statutes and succeeding statutes, 
the mere fact that real estate belonging to an exempted institution 



PHILLIPS ACADEMY V. ANDOVER. 235 

was occupied by it or by one of its officers, could not be regarded as 
sufficient without anything more to exempt the property from taxation, 
and it has not been so regarded. (Peirce v. Cambridge, 2 Cush. 61 1 ; 
Williams College v. Williamstown, 1G7 Mass. 505; Amherst College 
V. Amherst, 173 Mass. 232.) In any other view, the words "for the 
purposes for which they are incorporated" would be unnecessary 
and meaningless. The omission from subsequent statutes of the word 
"actually" which was in the Revised Statutes does not affect the 
construction. (Lynn Workingmen's Aid Association v. Lynn, 136 
Mass. 283-285.) Whatever else therefore may be said of the occu- 
pancy it must be for the purposes for which the institution was incor- 
porated, and this renders it necessary to inquire into the nature and 
character of the occupancy. If, taking all of the circumstances and 
all legitimate considerations into account, it can be fairly said that the 
purpose of the occupancy is that for which the institution was incor- 
porated, then the property is exempt, otherwise not. 

The occupancy contemplated by the statute means, ive think, some- 
thing viore than that which results from ownership and possession on 
the part of the institution, or the use of the property for investment pur- 
poses. It must have or be supposed to have direct reference to the 
purposes for which the institution was incorporated, and must tend 
or be supposed to tend directly to promote them. In a sense, any 
occupancy on the part of the institution or its officers may be said 
to have reference to those purposes and to promote them. But the 
language of the statute imports, we think, a direct, or \vhat is sup- 
posed to be a direct, connection between the occupation and the pur- 
poses for which the institution was incorporated, and not an indirect 
one. It is not enough, for instance, that an income is derived from 
the occupancy which is applied to carrying on the institution. (Chapel 
Good Shepherd v. Boston, 120 Mass. 212). At the same time the 
occupancy may be of the kind contemplated by the statute, notwith- 
standing that as incident to it rent is received or the pecuniary value 
to the officer occupying is taken into account in some other manner. 
(Mass. Gen. Hospital v. Somerville, 101 Mass. 319.) The distinction 
lies, it seems to us, between an occupancy which is for the private 
benefit and convenience of the officer, and which is so regarded by 
the parties, as in the ordinary case of landlord and tenant, and an 
occupancy where, although necessarily to some extent the relation of 
landlord and tenant enters into it, the dominant or principal matter of 



236 EXEMPTIOX FROM TAXATION 

consideration is the cjf'ccf of the occnpmicij in promoting the objects of 
the institution in the various wai/s in which such occupancy may or 
will tend to promote them. In the former case the property would not 
be exempt, in the latter it would; and the fact that the institution 
incidentally derived some pecuniary advantage from the occupancy 
would not deprive the property of the exemption to which it otherwise 
would be entitled. 

In considerino; whether property is occupied so as to be exempt, 
regard may be had amongst other things to the situation of the insti- 
tution. If, for instance, it is so situated that desirable residences are 
not or may not be easily obtained, and those in charge of it are of 
opinion that such officers as the best interests of the institution and of 
those resorting to it require can be more easily obtained if the institu- 
tion provides places for them to live in, and it does so, this may be 
taken into account in determining whether the occupancy is for the 
purposes for which the institution was incorporated. Or again, if 
with the best interests of the institution as an educational institution 
in view, and for the purpose of enhancing its advantages to students 
and of promoting discipline and good conduct and greater freedom 
of intercourse between students and professors and instructors, those 
in charge deem it advisable that the president and professors and 
others connected with the institution should occupy residences in the 
college yard or in proximity to the college buildings, this also may be 
taken into account. The dominant purpose of the occupancy under 
such or similar circumstances may be as truly that for which the insti- 
tution was incorporated, as the occupancy of buildings for recitation 
purposes, or for offices, or for other like purposes would be. And the 
occupancy does not lose what may be termed its institutional character 
and purpose because as incidental to it the officers and their families 
are provided with homes for the use and enjoyment of which by them 
compensation is allowed or taken into account in some manner. In 
many if not most New England colleges and academies, the presence 
of the faniilies of the professors and other officers has been and is 
regarded as beneficial to the students and as advantageous to the 
institution. The occupation, therefore, by them as homes of property 
belonging to such institutions would not necessarily be inconsistent 
with the spirit and intent of the exempting clause. 

In considering the purpose of the occupancy, due weight is also to 
be given to the intentions of those in charge of the institution. The 



PHILLIPS ACADEMY V. ANDOVER 237 

institution can only act through agents. In Mass. Gen. Hospital v. 
Somerville, 101 Mass. 319-322, it is said that "what lands are reason- 
ably required and what use of lands will promote the purposes for 
which the institution was incorporated must be determined by its 
officers ... In the absence of anything to show abuse or otherwise to 
impeach their determination, it is sufficient that the lands are intended 
for and in fact appropriated to those purposes;" and again, later, 
"the presumption is in favor of their judgment and it requires some- 
thing more than mere difference of opinion upon a matter of opinion 
especially confided to them, to overcome that presumption." Their 
conclusions are not final. But if consistent with other facts tending 
to show that the pur[)ose of the occupancy is that for which the institu- 
tion was incorporated they well may be allowed to have a controlling 
effect. 

The question whether in any given case the property is or is not 
exempt is to be determined by considering all of the facts and cir- 
cumstances; and the intentions and purposes of those in charge of 
the institution respecting the use and occupation of the property will 
or may have a material bearing upon the proper determination of the 
question. 

In applying the principles thus laid down, it is clear that not only 
may premises used by officers as homes for themselves and their 
families be so occupied by such officers as to be exempt, but also dor- 
mitories and dining-halls, and boarding houses, gymnasiums, and 
other buildings intended primarily for and actually devoted to the use 
and benefit of students or those attending the institution for the pur- 
poses for which it was incorporated. The statute is not to be con- 
strued narrowly but in a fair and liberal sense and so as to promote 
that spirit of learning, charity, and benevolence which it has always 
been one of the fundamental objects of the people of this State to 
encourage. 

We think that there is nothing in Peirce v. Cambridge, 2 Cush. 611; 
Williams College v. Williamstown, supra; and Amherst College v. 
Amherst, 173 Mass. 232, necessarily inconsistent with the views ex- 
pressed above. In Peirce v. Cambridge, the question as stated in 
Williams College v. Williamstown, supra, "was whether the real estate 
was taxable to Peirce as tenant," etc. The decision was put on the 
ground that the facts were such as to create in Professor Peirce an 
estate as tenant for which he was taxable. Perhaps the case might 



238 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

have stood equaliy well on the ground that the occupation appeared 
to be rather for the private benefit and convenience of Professor Peirce 
than for the purposes for which the college was incorporated; so in 
Williams College v. Williamstown the occupation was held by the 
majority of the Court to be for ])rivate purposes. That case stands on 
its own facts and was not supposed by a majority of the Court to over- 
rule any prior eases or to change the law as it had been previously 
practised and understood. Amherst College v. Amherst followed the 
Williamstown case and went on the ground that it could not be held 
as matter of law, which was the ruling of the Superior Court, that the 
house was exempt, though it was intimated in the opinion that it could 
have been found "that the dominant purposes of the president's 
occupation were not ]>rivate but those for which the college was in- 
corporated." On the other hand, we think that the conclusions Mhich 
we have reached are abundantly supjjorted by Wesleyan Academy v. 
W^ilbraham, 99 Mass. 599; Mass. Gen. Hospital v. Somerville, supra; 
Mt. Hermon Boys' School v. Gill, 145 Mass. 139, in this State, and 
State V. Ross, 24 X. J. L. 497, and Yale University v. New Haven, 
42 Atl. Rep. 87. In addition to these cases, the case of Salem Lyceum 
V. Salem, 154 jNIass. 14, should be referred to. The property in that 
case was held to be unexempt, but it was stated that "if the principal 
occupation is by the plaintiff for those purposes {i. e-., the purposes for 
which the plaintiff was incorporated) occasional and incidental use 
and occupation for other purposes might not render it liable to taxa- 
tion," thus recognizing that it is or may be the dominant purpose which 
gives character to the occupation. As illustrating still further the 
effect of intention not only upon the character of the occupation, but 
as establishing the fact of occupancy for a purpose entitling the property 
to exemption, see N. E. Hospital v. Boston, 113 Mass. 518, and Trinity 
Church V. Boston, 118 iSIass. 164. See also Rural Cemetery v. Co. 
Com., 152 jNIass. 408. In this last case the petitioner, which was a 
cemetery corporation, was authorized to purchase additional lands 
to be "applied exclusively" to the objects of the corporation. It 
purchased land on which there was a dwelling-house and barns, and 
it was assessed for the land. At the time of the assessment, no burial 
lots had been laid out on the land so purchased. But it was held that 
it could not be said that the land was not devoted exclusively to the 
objects of the corporation, and that the exemption from taxation of 
the dwelling-house and barns was justified by the fact that the build- 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 239 

ings and their occupation as described were necessary for the business 
of the corporation and the management of the cemetery, and the 
property was accordingly declared to be exempt. This case vvould 
seem to show that even if the occupation was required to be exclusively 
for the purposes for which the institution was incorporated (though 
we do not think it is) an occupation by an officer and his family might 
be regarded under some circumstances as exclusively for such purposes 
notwithstanding the element of private benefit. See White v. Bayley, 
10 C. B. (n. s.) 227. 

Whether the occupancy by Professor Taylor should be referred to 
his life estate or to his connection with the academy as professor, or 
whether the academy is taxable for its reversionary interest, we do not 
deem it necessary to consider now. 

Down to this point we are all substantially agreed. But some of my 
brethren think that the facts are not stated with sufficient fulness to 
enable us to pass satisfactorily upon the subject thus far considered, 
and that the agreed facts should be discharged and the case sent back, 
so that the facts can be presented more fully. Others of my brethren 
and myself are inclined to construe the agreed facts somewhat liberally 
and to think that we can decide the case now. But with this expres- 
sion we yield to the views of those of our brethren who think otherwise, 
and are content that the agreed facts should be discharged and the 
case sent back for another trial. 



PRESIDEiNT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE vs. 
ASSESSORS OF CAMBRIDGE 

Opinion 

Morton, J. This is an action to recover back taxes that were 
assessed by the defendants on certain parcels of real estate belonging 
to the plaintiff corporation situated in Cambridge, which the plaintiff 
contends were exempt from taxation under Public Statutes, Chap. 11, 
Section 5, Clause 3, as amended by Statute 1889, Chapter 465. 

The case was heard by a Justice of the Superior Court without a 
jury on what are called agreed facts, but which we interpret as author- 
izing him to draw such inferences as he thought warranted; he held 



240 EXEMPTION FRoM TAXATION 

that the property was exempt, and found for the phuntiff for the entire 
amount, and reported the case to this Court in such a manner as to 
present the tjuestion of the assessabihty of each of the parcels. 

W^ think that the riding of the Superioi; Court was right, and that 
all of the property was exem[)t from taxation. ]Many of the principles 
and considerations and authorities applicable to this case have been 
stated and referred to somewhat at length in Trustees of Phillips 
Academy v. Andover, ante, and we do not deem it necessary to repeat 
them here. 

The history of Harvard College and of like institutions shows, we 
think, that from the beginning, dormitories and dining-halls have 
been furnished by the college for the use of the students, and have 
been regarded as devoted to college purposes. In addition to this, 
the effect of the decisions in Wesleyan Academy v. Wilbrahum, 99 
Mass. 599, and ]\It. Hermon Boys' School v. Gill, 145 ]Mass. 139, is 
plainly to exempt property applied to such uses. See also Yale 
University v. New Haven, 71 Conn. 316, and State v. Ross, 24 N. J. L. 
497. We do not think that it makes any difference in principle that 
the college, instead of furnishing board itself, provides a place, without 
rent or compensation in any form or a lease or any agreement for a 
fixed term, for the use of students who club together for the purpose 
of obtaining for themselves with the assistance of the college, food at 
cost. The property so used is occupied, it seems to us, for the pur- 
poses for which the college was incorporated. ]\Iany particulars are 
stated in the agreed facts in regard to No. 17 Kirkland Street, which 
is the parcel that we are now considering, which we do not think it 
necessary to refer to, as it seems to us plain that the property is exempt 
from taxation. 

The history of the college and of the legislation relating to it also 
shows, we think, that the president's house, during the earlier years 
of the college at any rate, was regarded as almost, if not quite as 
necessary for the purposes of the institution as dormitories and dining- 
halls. Public mone}' was appropriated by the General Court to build 
it as it had been to build the college buildings, and the occupancy of 
it was evidently considered as official. The present house was built 
with funds given expressly for the purpose of erecting a dw elling-house 
for the president and his successors in office, and since it was built has 
been occupied by them and their families. The president is required 
to live in Cambridge. He pays no rent or compensation for the use 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 241 

and occupation of the house, and has no lease, but occupies it, if he 
chooses, so long as he performs the duties of president. It, with several 
•of the other houses that were taxed, namely, Nos. 11, 25, and 37 Quincy 
Street, this being 17 Quincy Street, are now and were at the time of 
the assessment within the college grounds, and the premises are kept 
in order and repair, including grading, gravelling walks, fertilizing, 
and repairing and cleaning furnace, removal of ashes, etc., under the 
direction of the college superintendent of buildings and the superin- 
tendent of grounds and at the college expense. The whole lower floor, 
"except possibly the kitchen, is used for Class Day, Commencement 
and other receptions,' and for many hospitalities incident to the presi- 
dent's functions." "The hall and drawing-room are also used for 
the convenience of the college and the president for meetings of the 
faculty and committees, for conferences with university officers and 
students, for calls on university business, and for the annual meetings 
of the Corporation at which degrees are voted." The rest of the house 
consists of the usual living and housekeeping rooms and chambers, 
and is used by the president and his family as a dwelling-house. 

It seems to us that on these facts, the Judge who heard the case was 
justified in finding that the dominant or principal purpose of the 
occupancy by the president was that for which the college was incor- 
porated. His occupation, it could be fairly said, was, so far as the 
University was concerned, official, as the head of the University, just 
as, for instance, the President occupies the White House, and not in 
any just sense, primarily or principally for his own private benefit. 

The remaining six houses are occupied by professors, three of whom 
are deans, each charged with a portion of the administrative duties 
formerly devolving exclusively on the president. Three of the houses, 
as already observed, are within the college grounds. All of them are 
kept in order and repair at the expense of the college in the same 
manner and to the same extent as the house occupied by the president. 
The halls and drawing-rooms in all of them, except No. 37 Quincy 
Street, occupied by Professor Langdell, are used, partly for the con- 
venience of the college, and partly for that of the professor, for different 
college uses and purposes incident to his duties as professor, chairman 
of committees, dean, and the like. In the case of No. 11 Quincy 
Street, the drawing-room and hall are used by the professor for regular 
college exercises during the college year. In the case of No. 16 Quincy 
Street, the professor is Chairman of the Freshman Advisory Com- 



242 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

mittee of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, consisting of about twenty 
persons, and he has a great number of interviews in his drawing-room 
with students and parents. In the case of 25 Quincy Street, the 
college in 1892 made additions and improvements at its own expense 
so as to make the house more convenient for the transaction of college 
business and the entertaining of guests on college account. The 
additions as well as the drawing-room and hall are used for different 
college purposes incident to the several duties of the occupying pro- 
fessor. The j)arts of the houses to which no reference has been made 
are used by the professors and their families, and consist of the usual 
living and housekeeping rooms and chambers. In the fall of the year 
when the salaries of the professors are voted, they are fixed at certain 
amounts "and the use of the house $750," or whatever the sum may 
be; "otherwise the professor pays no rent and has no other agreement 
for his use and occupation of the house, but uses it as such professor." 
We think that it was competent for the Justice who heard the case to 
find on these facts that the dominant consideration in regard to the 
occupation of the houses by the several professors had reference to the 
performance of their duties as officers and professors, rather than to the 
private benefit which they would receive in the way of homes for 
themselves and their families, and that he was justified in finding that 
the occupancy was for the purposes for which the college was incor- 
porated. 

This case is distinguishable, we think, from ^Yilliams College v. 
Williamstown, 1G7 Mass. 611. In the first place, there was no question 
in that case as to the taxation of a building used for a dormitory and 
dining-hall for the students. In the next place, the occupation by 
the professors in this case clearly lacks the exclusive character which 
it was held to have in that case. In the third place, no such use for 
college purposes is shown to have been made of the houses occupied 
by the professors in that case as appears in this case. In the fourth 
place, the sums fixed as compensation for the use of the houses in that 
case were paid and received as rent, and were so treated by the Court. 
In this case, the sums fixed for the use of the houses were allowed as 
part of the compensation for services as professors, thus tending to 
show, as said in Mass. Gen. Hospital v. Somerville, 101 ^Nlass. 326, that 
"the occupation ^^as one merely by reason of service" and that the 
value put upon the use of the house was merely "a convenient mode of 
adjusting the compensation . . and not the income or fruit of an estate 



HARVARD COLLEGE V. CAMBRIDGE 243 

granted." Lastly, this case seems to be one where the buildings are 
occupied "with the permission of the college, and without" the pro- 
fessors "having any estate therein or paying any rent therefor," in 
which case it was said in Peirce v. Cambridge, 2 Cush. 611, the property 
would be exempt from taxation. See also White v. Bayley, 10 C. B. 
(n. s.) 227. 

The defendant relies on Third Congregational Society v. Springfield, 
147 Mass. 396, which was a case where a parsonage was declared to 
be unexempt. The Court held that religious societies did not come 
within the clause that we have been considering, but within the seventh 
clause, and that the exemption was limited to houses of religious 
worship only. That case is not applicable to this. 

We think that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed. 

So ordered. 



EXTRACT FROM TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT 
OF THE HARVARD CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. 

(1907) 



"In completing a quarter-century of business in Cambridge, it may 
not be amiss to set forth, on behalf of the Society, a few facts regarding 
the policy and operations of the Harvard Co-operative Society and its 
relations to local mercantile interests in general. The Society, as a 
Massachusetts corporation, pays all the taxes to which such mercan- 
tile corporations are by law subjected; it enjoys no legal immunity 
or privilege whatsoever by virtue of its indirect connection with 
Harvard College. It pays to the city of Cambridge annual taxes 
upon an assessment of $60,000, although, when the Society began to 
negotiate for the purchase of "Lyceum Hall" in 1902-03, this prop- 
erty was assessed for only $36,000. In the conduct of its business 
the Co-operative Society is subject to every item or expenditure which 
ordinarily finds place in the expense account of any regular corporate 
enterprise. Throughout the academic year it maintains upon its 
pay-roll an average of sixty-five employees, and disburses for wages, 
taxes, insurance, interest, water, light, printing, expressage, and 
sundries, an average of well over $1000 per week, nearly all of which 
goes to residents of Cambridge. In addition, thousands of dollars' 
worth of work, such as laundering, repairing, etc., are given to local 
Cambridge establishments. The Board is assured that a large 
proportion of the Co-operative's increase in business, especially in 
such lines as furniture and tailoring, consists of trade which formerly 
went, not to stores in Cambridge, but to merchants in Boston; and 
that the Society has thus rendered service to the best interests of 
Cambridge by keeping trade within the city limits. The Co-operative 
Society has confined its business, moreover, strictly to such special 
classes of merchandise as are constantly in demand by its own mem- 
bers. It cannot, again, be too strongly emphasized that, with the 
exception of special mark-down sales to which every business house 

245 



246 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

must at times resort to clear up old stock, the Co-operative does not 
sell a single dollar's worth of goods except at what the management 
regards as a fair and adequate advance upon cost. There is no 
general policy of selling at cost or below cost, as the gross profits for 
the last fiscal year very conclusively prove. If, as is sometimes 
alleged, merchandise is offered for sale in the Co-operative's store 
at a price below that at which goods of similar (juality can be bought 
at wholesale by local merchants, this fact can only indicate a legiti- 
mate advantage resulting from the Society's policy of buying in large 
quantities, for ready cash, and at favorable turns in the market. 



LEGISLATION IN REGARD TO THE EXEMPTION OF 
■ COLLEGE PROPERTY FROM TAXATION. 



LEGISLATION IN REGARD TO THE EXEMPTION OF 
COLLEGE PROPERTY FROM TAXATION. 



REVISED STATUTES, 1836, CHAP. 7, SECT. 5, CL. 2. 

The following property and polls shall be exempted from taxation, 
namely: — 

Secondly. The personal property of all literary, benevolent, chari- 
table and scientific institutions, incorporated within this Common- 
wealth, and such real estate belonging to such institutions, as shall 
actually be occupied by them, or by the officers of said institutions, 
for the purposes for which they were incorporated. 

GENERAL STATUTES 1860, CHAP. 11, SECT. 5, CL. 3: 

The following property and polls shall be exempted from taxa- 
tion : — 

Third. The personal property of literary, benevolent, charitable, 
and scientific institutions incorporated within this conmionwealth, 
and the real estate belonging to such institutions, occupied by them 
or the officers for the purposes for which they were incorporated. 

ACTS OF 1874, CHAP. 375, SECT. 8. 

The real and personal estate of such corporations (educational etc.) 
shall not be exempt from taxation in any case where part of the income 
or profits of their business is divided among members or stockholders, 
or where any portion of such estate is used or appropriated for other 
than literary, educational, benevolent, charitable, scientific or religious 
purposes. 



249 



250 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

ACTS OF 1878, CHAP. 214, SECT. 1. 

The real estate belonging to such institutions as are mentioned in 
the third division of section five of chapter eleven of the General 
Statutes, (literary, benevolent, charitable, and scientific institutions) 
purchased with a view of removal thereto, shall not be exempt from 
taxation for a longer period than two years until such removal takes 
place. 

PUBLIC STATUTES 1882, CHAP. 11, SECT. 5, CL. 3. 

The following property and polls shall be exempted from taxation : — 
Third, The personal property of literary, benevolent, charitable, 
and scientific institutions incorporated within this commonwealth, 
and the real estate belonging to such institutions, occupied by them 
or their officers for the purposes for which they were incorporated; 
but such real estate, when purchased by such a corporation with a view 
to removal thereto, shall not, prior to such removal, be exempt for a 
longer period than two years; and the real and personal estate of such 
corporations formed under general laws shall not be exempt in any 
case where part of the income or profits of their business is divided 
among their members or stockholders, or where any portion of such 
estate is used or approj^riated for other than literary, educational, 
benevolent, charitable, scientific, or religious purposes. 

ACTS OF 1882, CHAP. 217, SECTS. 1 AND 2. 

Section 1. The notice to be given by assessors under the provisions 
of section thirty-eight of chapter eleven of the Public Statutes shall 
require all persons and corporations to bring in to the assessors, 
within a time therein specified, not later than the first day of July in 
the then current year, true lists of all real and personal estate held by 
such persons and corporations respectively for literary, benevolent, 
charitable or scientific purposes on the first day of INlay in said vear, 
together with statements of the amounts of all receipts and expenditures 
by such persons or corporations for said purposes during the year next 
preceding said first day of INIay; such lists and statements to be in 
such details as may be required by the tax commissioner: provided, 



Legislation 251 

that the assessors may accept any such list and statement after the 
time so specified if they shall be satisfied that there was good cause 
for the delay; but no list or statement shall be received after the first 
day of August in the then current year. 

Section 2. If any person or corporation wilfully omits to bring in 
the list and statement of real and personal estate as herein required, 
the estate so held shall not be exempt from taxation in the then current 
year under the provisions of the third clause of section five of said 
chapter 

ACTS OF 1886, CHAP. 231. 

Section five of chapter eleven of the Public Statutes is hereby amended 
in the third division by adding after the word "institutions" in the 
second line thereof, the words : — and temperance societies, — and 
by adding after the word "institutions" in the third line thereof, the 
words; — and societies. 



ACTS OF 18S8, CHAP. 158, SECT. 1, 

The third paragraph of section five of chapter eleven of the Public 
Statutes as amended by chapter two hundred and thirty-one of the 
acts of the year eighteen hundred and eighty-six is hereby further 
amended so as to read as follows: — Third, The personal property 
of literary, benevolent, charitable and scientific institutions and 
temperance societies incorporated within this Common^\ealth, and 
the real estate belonging to such institutions and societies occupied 
by them or their officers for the purposes for which they w^ere incor- 
porated; but such real estate when purchased by such a corporation 
with a view to removal thereto, shall not, prior to such removal, be 
exempt for a longer period than two years; but none of the real or 
personal estate of such corporations organized under general laws 
shall be exempt when any portion of the income or profits of the busi- 
ness of such corporations is divided among their members or stock- 
holders or used or appropriated for other than literary, educational, 
benevolent, charitable, scientific or religious purposes. 



252 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

ACTS OF 1889, CHAP, 465, SECT. 1. 

The third division of section five of chapter eleven of the Public 
Statutes, as amended by chapter two hundred and thirty-one of the 
acts of the year eighteen hundred and eighty-six and chapter one 
hundred and fifty-eight of the acts of the year eighteen hundred and 
eighty-eight, is hereby further amended so as to read as follows: — 
Third, The personal property of literary, benevolent, charitable and 
scientific institutions and temperance societies incorporated within 
this Commonwealth, and the real estate belonging to such institutions 
occupied by them or their officers for the purposes for which they 
were incorporated; but such real estate when purchased by such a 
corporation with a view to removal thereto, shall not, prior to such 
removal, be exempt for a longer period than two years; but none of the 
real or personal estate of such corporations organized under general 
laws shall be exempt when any ])oriion of the income or profits of the 
business of such corporations is divided among their members or 
stockholders or used or appropriated for other than literary, educational 
benevolent, charitable, scientific or religious purposes. * * * * 

REVISED LAWS 1902, CHAP. 12, SECT. 5, CL. 3. 

The following property and polls shall be exempted from taxation. 

Third, The personal property of literary, benevolent, charitable 
and scientific institutions and of temperance societies incorporated 
within this commonwealth, the real estate owned and occupied by 
them or their officers for the purposes for which they are incorporated, 
and real estate purchased by them with the purpose of removal thereto, 
until such removal, but not for more than two years after such purchase. 
Such real or personal property shall not be exempt if any of the in- 
come or profits of the business of such corporation is divided among the 
stockholders or members, or is used or appropriated for other than 
literary, educational, benevolent, charitable, scientific or religious 
purposes, nor shall it be exempt for any year in which such corporation 
wilfully omits to bring in to the assessors the list and statement required 
by section forty-one. 



LEGISLATION 253 

REVISED LAWS 1902, CHAP. 12, SECT. 41. 

Assessors, before making an assessment, shall give seasonable 
notice thereof to the inhabitants of their respective cities and towns. 
Such notice shall be posted in one or more public places in their cities 
and towns or shall be given in some other sufficient manner, and 
shall require the inhabitants to bring to the assessors, before a date 
therein specified, true lists of all their polls and personal estate not 
exempt from taxation, and may or may not require them to include 
them in their real estate which is subject to taxation. It shall also 
require all persons and corporations, except corporations making return 
to the insurance commissioner as required by section nineteen of 
chapter one hundred and eighteen, to bring in to the assessors, before 
a date therein specified, which shall not be later than the first day of 
July then following unless the assessors, for cause shown, extend the 
time to the first day of August, true lists of all real and personal 
estate lield by them, respectively, for literary, benevolent, charitable 
or scientific purposes on the preceding first day of May or, at the 
election of such corporation, on the last day of its financial year last 
preceding said first day of May, and to state the amount of receipts 
and expenditures for said purposes during the year last preceding 
said days. The notice shall contain the provisions of section forty- 
five. 



BILLS AND RESOLVES PROPOSED LN BUT NOT PASSED 
BY THE LEGISLATURE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 



1874. HOUSE NO. 427. 
House of Representatives, May 28, 1874. 

The Committee on Just and Equal Taxation, to whom were referred 
the petition of the executive committee of the Boston Liberal 
League for the enactment of laws securing just and equal taxa- 
tion, and the petition of Phineas E. Gay and 1,150 others of 
Boston, and numerous other petitions, in aid of said first men- 
tioned petition; also the Bill introduced by Mr. Whiting, of 
Pembroke, for the taxation of religious and charitable corporations. 

Report: 

That they have heard the statements, facts and arguments pre- 
sented and urged in behalf of the petitioners; also the statements, 
facts and arguments presented and urged by numerous remonstrants; 
and have, so far as they have been able, duly considered the same; 
that they find the subject opens a wide field for inquiry and investiga- 
tion, involving the consideration of a multitude of facts and the most 
important questions or state policy, and that a proper, careful and 
thorough inquiry and investigation requires more time and attention 
than they have been able to give, and more than can well be given 
by a Committee sitting only occasionally during the session of the 
legislature; that they are not prepared to recommend any change in 
the laws relating to- exemptions from taxation, at this time, but, be- 
lieving that the importance of the subject and its general interest to 
the people and taxpayers of the State, will justify the appointment 
of a commission, with authority to sit during the recess of the legisla- 
ture, to call such witnesses and make such inquiry and investigation 

255 



256 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION' 

as they deem proper relative to the laws relating to taxation and 
the exemptions therefrom, and make a fidl report in print to the next 
General Court, they recommend the passage of the accompanying 
Resolve. 

Per order, 

SAMUEL O. LAMB. 



Resolve. 

Authorizing the Appointment of a Commission to inquire into the 
expediency of revising and amending the laws of the State relating 
to Taxation and the exemptions therefrom. 

Resolved, That the governor and council be and they are hereby 
authorized to appoint a commission, consisting of three suitable per- 
sons, to sit during the recess of the legislature, to inquire into the 
expediency of revising and amending the laws of the state relating 
to taxation and the exemptions therefrom, with authority to call 
witnesses, and to report in full, in print, to the next general court. 

MiNTORiTY Report. 

The following bill was reported by Mr. William Whiting of Pem- 
broke, a minority of the above-mentioned Committee on Just and 
Equal Taxation. 

AN ACT 

Concerning the I'axation of Religious, Charitable and other Socie- 
ties and Corporations. 

Sect. L That on and after the first day of January, in the 
year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, the property 
of musical, agricultural and educational associations, other than 
colleges and town schools, heretofore exempted from taxation, 
shall be taxed the same as other descriptions of property. 

Sect. 2. The property of religious and charitable associations. 



BILLS PROPOSED BUT NOT PASSED 257 

heretofore exempted from taxation, shall, except in the cases 
hereinafter mentioned, be taxed in the same manner as the cor- 
porations and societies named in the first section: provided, 
however, that all religious societies shall be entitled to hold 
property to the amount of five thousand dollars free from taxation. 

Sect. 3. Religious and other societies claiming to be purely 
charitable in purpose and administration, shall, before the date 
named in the first section of this act, make to the commission 
hereinafter established, returns setting forth the purpose and 
location of such society, amount of endowment and whence 
derived, their annual receipts and expenditures, and the specific 
objects to which the latter have been devoted during the year 
last past, with the number and salaries of their officers. 

Sect. 4. The board of state charities, together with the tax 
commissioner, shall conotitute a commission to receive and 
examine the returns required in the third section of this act, 
and when it shall appear to their satisfaction that any society 
making such returns is a pure charity, they shall certify the same 
to the tax commissioner, and said society shall be exempt from 
taxation for the amount applied to charitable purposes: provided, 
however, that societies neglecting to make returns shall not bene- 
fit by the provisions of this act. 

Sect. 5. The tax authorized by this act shall be assessed by 
the tax commissioner, and at the average rate of the state, county 
and town tax for the year preceding. And the basis of valuation 
upon which the tax shall be assessed shall be the present value 
of property for the same or similar purposes to which it has been 
applied. And the tax commissioner is hereby authorized to 
require from all the societies and associations affected by this 
act such returns as may be found necessary to the discharge of 
his duty. And the compensation of the conmiission hereby 
created shall be fixed by the governor and council. 

Sect. 6. This act shall take effect upon its passage, and all 
acts and parts of acts contrary to the provisions of this act are 
hereby repealed. 



/ 



258 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

1897. SENATE NO. 192. 

AN ACT 

To Exempt from Taxation certain Real Estate belonging to Literary, 
Benevolent, Charitable and Scientific Institutions. 

Section 1. The exemption provided by section five of chapter 
eleven of the Public Statutes shall apply to such real estate 
belonging to any of the institutions enumerated in clause third of 
said section as is occupied as a residence in the town where his 
official work is performed by a person whose sole or principal 
business is that of an officer of instruction, administration or 
government of such institution, so long as said occupation is in 
whole or in part the compensation of such officer. 

Nothing herein contained shall be construed to extend in any 
manner the exemption provided by any of the other clauses of 
.said section. 

Sect. 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage, and 
shall apply to the assessment of taxes for the current year. 

1898. SENATE NO. 131. 

AN ACT 

To exempt from Taxation Certain Real Estate belonging to Literary 
Benevolent, Charitable and Scientific Institutions. 

Section L The exemption provided by section five of chapter 
eleven of the Public Statutes shall apply to such real estate be-, 
longing to any of the institutions enumerated in clause third of 
said section as is occupied as a residence in the town where his 
official work is performed by a person whose sole or principle 
business is that of an officer of instruction, administration or 
government of such institution, so long as said occupation is 
in whole or in part the compensation of such officer. 

Nothing herein contained shall be construed to extend in any 
manner the exemption provided by any of the other clauses of 
said section. 

Section 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage, and 
shall apply to the assessment of taxes for the current year. 



BILLS PROPOSED BUT NOT PASSED 259 

1898. HOUSE NO. 1330. 

AN ACT 

Relative to the Exemption from Taxation of Certain Literary, 
Benevolent, Charitable and Scientific Institutions. 

Section 1. The exemption provided by section five of chapter 
eleven of the Public Statutes shall apply to land owned on May 
first, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, by any of the institutions 
enumerated in clause third of said section, so long as it is occupied 
by such institution for the purposes for which it was incorporated ; 
and to houses on land owned by any of said institutions on May 
first, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, and occupied as resi- 
dences by persons whose sole or principal business is that of 
officers of instruction, administration or government of such in- 
stitution whenever such occupation is in whole or in part the com- 
pensation of such officers ; and to halls, dormitories, and such other 
buildings now or hereafter erected on land of said institutions as 
may be occupied for the purposes for which the said institutions 
were incorporated. 

Nothing herein contained shall be construed to affect in any 
manner the exemption provided by any of the other clauses of 
said section. Nor shall anything herein contained exempt 
from taxation any property taxed to any of the enumerated insti- 
tutions prior to May first, eighteen hundred and ninety-four unless 
and until such property is occupied in accordance with the pro- 
visions of said clause third. 

Section 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage and 
shall apply to the assessment of taxes for the current year. 

1898. HOUSE NO 1331. 
RESOLVE 

To provide for the Appointment of a Commission to report upon 
the Relation of the Exemption of Certain Property to Local and 
General Taxation. 



260 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

Resolved, That the Governor by and with the consent of the 
Council appoint a commission of three persons to obtain, collate 
and report facts concerning the relation of the exemption from 
taxation of property of literary, scientific, benevolent' and chari- 
table institutions, and of all real estate exemjit by law from 
taxation, either in whole or in part, to local and general taxation 
within the Commonwealth, for the purposes of determining how 
the localities where such property is situated are affected by 
such exemptions, and to consider and report whether the amount 
of such exempted property should be regulated by law, and 
whether the tax which might have been levied thiereupon should 
be assumed by the Commonwealth. 

Such commission shall have authority to employ assistance and 
to send for persons and papers. 

Its necessary expenses, so far as approved by the Governor and 
Council, together with such compensation to the members thereof 
as shall be determined by the Governor and Council, shall be 
paid from time to time from the treasury of the Commonwealth. 

The report shall be made and presented to the General Court 
not later than January fifteenth, eighteen hundred and ninety- 
nine. 



1899. HOUSE NO. 212. 
AN ACT 

Helative to the Taxation of Certain Property of Educational Institu- 
tions. 

Section 1. All personal property and real estate belonging 
to incorporated or unincorporated educational institutions within 
this Commonwealth shall be subject to taxation the same as other 
property in the Commonwealth, excepting only such personal 
property and real estate of incorporated or unincorporated 
educational institutions within this Commonwealth as is actually 
and necessarily used for the sole purpose of instruction or educa- 
tion. All athletic fields, play-grounds, gymnasiums and libraries 
actually used as such in connection with such institutions, and 
such buildings on athletic fields and playgrounds as bathhouses 



BILLS PROi'OSEU BUT NOT PASSED 261 

and stands which are necessary for a proper use of the same, 
shall be exempt from taxation. 

Sectiox 2. So much of Public Statutes, chapter eleven, 
section five, clause three, and chapter four hundred and sixty- 
five of acts of eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, as is inconsistent 
herewith, is hereby repealed. 

Section 3. This act shall take effect on its passage. 



1899. HOUSE NO. 497. 
AN ACT 

To limit to State Taxes the Exemption from Taxation of Properties 
of Literary and Scientific Institutions. 

Section 1. The properties of literary and scientific institutions, 
• incorporated within this Commonwealth, shall be exempt from 
taxation, only as to State taxes, and so much of Public Statutes, 
chapter eleven, section five, clause three, as is inconsistent here- 
with, is hereby repealed. 

Section 2. This act shall take effect on its passage. 



1900. HOUSE NO. 506. 
AN ACT 

To provide for the Payment by the Commonwealth of Taxes to 
be assessed upon Literary and Scientific Institutions. 

Section 1. The real estate belonging to literary and scientific 
institutions, incorporated within this Commonwealth, occupied 
by them or their officers for the purposes for which they were 
incorporated, and exempted from taxation, under the provisions 
of section five of chapter eleven of the Public Statutes, and any 
amendments thereto, shall be assessed by the assessors of the 
city or town where the town is located, at its fair market value, 
upon the first day of May in each year; and the amount of the 



262 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

tax which would, except for such exemption thereof, be assessed 
thereon, shall be ascertained and reported by such assessors to 
the tax commissioner not later than the first day of October in 
each year; and thereupon such amount shall be credited and 
paid to such city or town out of the treasury of the Common- 
wealth, in the manner provided by section fifty-seven of chapter 
thirteen of the Public Statutes. 

Section 2. In any case in which the tax commissioner shall 
be of opinion that the amount so assessed upon such exempted 
real estate is not based upon the fair market value thereof, he 
may cause the same to be reassessed by himself or his deputy, 
and the amount of such re-assessment shall be taken and deemed 
to be the true assessment thereof, except as hereinafter provided. 

Section 3. Any city or town aggrieved by the re-assessment 
made by the tax commissioner, under the provisions of the pre- 
ceding section, may appeal therefrom to the board of appeal, 
established by section sixty-two of chapter thirteen, and the 
j>rovisions of said section shall apply in such appeals, so far as 
may be applicable, and the decision of said board shall be final. 

Section 4. This act shall take effect on the first day of April 
in the year nineteen hundred. 



1906. SENATE NO. 106. 

AN ACT 

Relative to the Taxation of Certain Property of Educational Insti- 
tutions. 

Section 1. Clause three of section five, chapter twelve, 
Revised Laws, is hereby amended by inserting after the word 
"real estate" in the ninth line, the words "except as hereinafter 
provided," and by adding after the word "forty-one" in the 
nineteenth line the following: "But no real property, owned and 
occupied by any educational, literary or scientific institution 
which is used or appropriated, wholly or in part, for residential, 
commercial or mercantile purposes or for dormitories, boarding 
houses or the dispensing of food or meals shall be exempt from 
taxation," so as to read as follows: — 



BILLS PROPOSED BUT NOT PASSED 263 

Third, The personal property of literary, benevolent, chari- 
table and scientific institutions and of temperance societies in- 
corporated within this Commonwealth, the real estate, except 
as hereinafter provided, owned and occupied by them or their 
officers for the purposes for which they are incorporated, and 
real estate purchased by them with the purpose of removal thereto, 
until such removal, but not for more than two years after such 
purchase. Such real or personal property shall not be exempt 
if any of the income or profits of the business of such corporation 
is divided among the stockholders or members, or is used or 
appropriated for other than literary, educational, benevolent, 
charitable, scientific or religious purposes, nor shall it be exempt 
for any year in which such corporation wilfully pmits to bring 
in to the assessors the list and statement required by section 
forty-one. But, no real property, owned and occupied by any 
educational, literary or scientific institution, which is used or 
appropriated, wholly or in part, for residential, commercial or 
mercantile purposes or for dormitories, boarding houses or for 
the dispensing of food or meals, shall be exempt from taxation. 

Section 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage. 



1906. SENATE NO. 382. 

AN ACT 

Relative to the Taxation of Certain Property of Educational Insti- 
tutions. 

Section 1. Clause three of section five, chapter twelve, Re- 
vised Laws, is hereby amended by inserting after the word 
"real estate," in the ninth line the words: — except as hereinafter 
provided, — and by adding after the word "forty-one," in the 
nineteenth line, the following: — But real property, owned and 
occupied by any college or university, or by any scientific institu- 
tion authorized to grant degrees, which is used or appropriated, 
wholly or in part, for residential, commercial or mercantile 
purposes or for dormitories shall not be exempt from taxation, — 
so as to read as follows : — 



264 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

Third, The {)ersonal property of Uterarv, benevolent, charitable 
and scientific institutions, and of temperance societies incorporated 
within this Commonwealth, the real estate, except as hereinafter 
provided, owned and occupied by them or their officers for the 
purposes for which they are incorporated, and real estate pur- 
chased by them with the purpose of removal thereto, imtil such 
removal, but not for more than two years after such purchase. 
Such real or personal property shall not be exempt if any of the 
income or profits of the business of such corporation is divided 
among the stockholders or members, or is used or appropriated 
for other than literary, educational, benevolent, charitable, 
scientific or religious purposes, nor shall it be exempt for any 
year in which such corporation wilfully omits to bring in to the 
assessors the list and statement required by section forty-one. 
But real property owned and occupied by any college or uni- 
versity, or by any scientific institution authorized to grant degrees, 
which is used or appropriated, wholly or in part, for residential, 
commercial or mercantile purposes or for dormitories shall not 
be exempt from taxation. 

Section 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage. 

1907. SENATE NO. 53. 
AN ACT 

To provide for the Taxation of the Real Estate of Literary and 
Scientific Institutions. 

Section 1. The real estate belonging to literary and scientific 
institutions, incorporated within this Conmionwealth, occupied 
by them or their officers for the purposes for Avhich they v/ere 
incorporated, and exempted from taxation, under the provisions 
of section five of chapter eleven of the Public Statutes, and any 
amendments thereto, shall be assessed by the assessors of the 
city or town where the town is located, at its fair market value, 
upon the first day of May in each year; and the amount of the 
tax which would, except for such exemption thereof, be assessed 
thereon, shall be ascertained and reported by such assessors to 
the tax commissioner not later than the first dav of October in 



BILLS PROPOSED BUT NOT PASSED 265 

each year; and thereupon such amount shall be credited and 
paid to such city or town out of the treasury of the Commonwealth, 
in the manner provided by section fifty-seven of chapter thirteen 
of the Public Statutes. 

Section 2. In any case in Avhich the tax commissioner shall 
be of opinion that the amount so assessed upon such exempted 
real estate is not based upon the fair market value thereof, he may 
cause the same to be re-assessed by himself or his deputy, and 
the amount of such re-assessment shall be taken and deemed 
to be the true assessment thereof, except as hereinafter provided. 

Section 3. Any city or town aggrieved by the re-assessment 
made by the tax commissioner, under the provisions of the pre- 
ceding section, may appeal therefrom to the board of appeal, 
established by section sixty-two of chapter thirteen, and the 
provisions of said section shall apply in such appeals, so far as 
may be applicable, and the decision of said board shall be finaL 

Section 4. This act shall take effect on the first day of April 
in the year nineteen hundred and seven. 



1907. SENATE NO. 54. 
AN ACT 

Relative to the Taxation of Certain Property of Educational Institu- 
tions. 

Section 1. Clause three of section five, chapter twelve. 
Revised Laws, is hereby amended by inserting after the word 
"real estate," in the ninth line, the words: — except as herein- 
after provided, — and by inserting after the word "forty-one," 
in the nineteenth line, the words: — But real property, owned 
and occupied by any college or university, or by any scientific 
institution authorized to grant degrees, which is used or appro- 
priated, wholly or in part, for residential, commercial or mer- 
cantile purposes or for dormitories, shall not be exempt from 
taxation, — so as to read as folloAvs: — 

Third, The personal property of literary, benevolent, charitable 
and scientific institutions and of temperance societies incorporated 



266 EXEMPTION LROM TAXATION 

within this Commonwealth, the real estate, except as hereinafter 
provided, OAvned antl occupied by them or their officers for the 
purposes for which they are incorporated, and real estate pur- 
chased by them with the purpose of removal thereto, until such 
removal, but not for more than two years after such purchase. 
Such real or personal property shall not be exempt if any of the 
income or profits of the business of such corporation is divided 
among the stockholders or members, or is used or appropriated 
for other than literary, educational, benevolent, charitable, 
scientific or religious purposes, nor shall it be exempt for any 
year in which such corporation wilfully omits to bring in to the 
assessors the list and statement required by section forty-one. 
But real property owned and occupied by any college or university, 
or by any scientific institution authorized to grant degrees, which 
is used or appropriated, wholly or in part, for residential, com- 
mercial or mercantile purposes or fo** dormitories shall not be 
exempt from taxation. 

Section 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage. 

1907. SENATE NO. 224. 

AN ACT 

To provide for the Taxation of the Property of Literary and Scien- 
tific Institutions. 

Section 1. The real estate of literary and scientific institu- 
tions, incorporated within this Commonwealth, owned and occu- 
pied by them or their officers for the purposes for w'hich they are 
incorporated, and exempted from taxation under the provisions 
of clause three of section five of chapter twelve of the Revised 
Laws of INIassachusetts and any amendments thereto, shall be as- 
sessed by the assessors of the city or town where such institution is 
located, at its fair market value upon the first day of May in each 
vear; and the amoimt of the tax which Avould, except for such 
exemption thereof, be assessed thereon, shall be ascertained and 
reported by such assessors to the tax commissioner not later than 
the first day of October in each year; and thereupon such amount 
shall be credited and paid to such city or town out of the treasury 
of the commonwealth. 



BILLS PROPOSED BUT NOT PASSED 267 

Section 2. In any case in which the tax commissioner shall 
be of the opinion that the amount so assessed upon such exempted 
property is not based upon the fair market value thereof, he may 
cause the same to be re-assessed by himself or his deputy, and the 
amount of such re-assessment shall be taken and deemed to be the 
true assessment thereof, except as hereinafter provided. 

Section 3. Any city or town, aggrieved by the re-assessment 
made by the tax commissioner, under the provisions of the pre- 
ceding section, may appeal therefrom to the board of appeal 
established by section sixty-five of chapter fourteen of said Re- 
vised Laws. 

Section 4. This act shall take effect on the first day of April 
in the year nineteen hundred and seven. 



1907. SENATE NO. 290. 

AN ACT 

Relative to the Taxation of Resident'al Property of Colleges and 
Universities. 

Section 1. The exemption from taxation provided by clause 
third of section five of chapter twelve of the Revised Laws shall 
not extend to such real estate belonging to any college or univer- 
sity or scientific institution authorized to grant degrees as is 
occupied as a residence by an officer of instruction, administration 
or government of such college, university or scientific institution. 

Section 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage. 



1907. HOUSE NO. 474. 
AN ACT 

Relative to the Taxation of Educational Institutions. 

Section 1. The Commonwealth shall hereafter annually 
pay to every city or town in which any educational institution 
is situated a tax upon such property of the institution as is exempt 



268 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

from taxation, to the amount of one-half of the sum which would 
be paid in taxes by such institution to the city or town if its 
property were not exempt from taxation. 

Section 2. For the purpose of the preceding section the 
property, upon which a tax is to be paid by the Commonwealth 
as aforesaid, shall be valued by the principal assessors of the city 
or town, or by the chairman of the board of selectmen of the town 
if there are no principal assessors, acting jointly with a commis- 
sioner of college taxation, who shall be appointed by the governor, 
\\ith the advice and consent of the council, for a term of years, 

and who shall receive an annual salary of three thousand dollars, 
and such further sum for his traveling and other necessary ex- 
penses as the governor may fix. In case an agreement cannot 
be reached by the said assessors or selectmen and the said com- 
missioner, the secretary of the state board of education shall act 
as an additional appraiser. In case an agreement cannot then 
be reached by said assessors or said selectmen and said commis- 
sioner, and said secretary, the finding of the secretary as to all 
matters referred to in this act shall be final and conclusive. The 
secretary shall serve in that capacity without compensation, 
except that he shall receive the amount of his traveling and other 
necessary expenses as approved by the governor. 

Section 3. This act shall take effect upon its passage, and 
shall apply to the assessment of taxes in the current year. 



1908. HOUSE NO.. 125. 

AN ACT 

Relative to the Taxation of Real Estate hereafter Acquired in the 
City of Cambridge by Harvard University. 

Section 1. Real estate hereafter acquired in the city of 
Cambridge by Harvard university shall be subject to taxation. 

Section 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage. 



BILLS PROPOSED BUT NOT PASSED . 269 



1908. HOUSE NO. 444. 

AN ACT 

To provide for the Payment by the Commonwealth of Taxes on the 
Real Estate of Certain Institutions. 

Section 1. The board of assessors of any city or town in 
which is located any real estate of a literary, benevolent, chari- 
table or scientific institution exempted from taxation under 
paragraph three of section five of chapter twelve of the Revised 
Laws shall assess taxes thereon in the same manner as on other 
real estate to the Conmionwealth, v\diich shall enjoy the same 
rights and privileges in relation to any such assessment as an 
owner of real estate. 

Section 2. The rate of taxes so assessed shall be one-half 
the rate assessed on other real estate in such city or town, shall 
be paid for the Commonwealth by the treasurer and receiver 
general at the same time and in the same manner as other taxes 
in such city or town, and shall be used by such city or town for 
the cost and maintenance of public schools. 

Section 3. This act shall take effect upon its passage. 



1908. HOUSE NO. 1424. 

AN ACT 

To provide for taxing the Real Estate of Certain Literary and Scien- 
tific Institutions. 

Section fi^•e of chapter twelve of the Revised Laws is hereby 
amended by adding at the end thereof the following: — provided, 
hoivever, that land hereafter acquired by an institution having 
authority to grant degrees shall not be exempt from taxation, 
nor shall buildings on such land be exempt, provided they are 
used in whole or in part for such purposes of the institution as 
may be productive of income. 



270 EXEMPTION" FRO-M TAXATION 

1909. HOUSE NO. 114. 

AN ACT 

Relative to the Assessment and Taxation of College and University 
Property. 

Section 1. College or university property shall be assessed 
in the same manner and to the same extent as if the same were 
private property ; and parties interested shall have the same right 
of appeal so far as applicable as if said property were private 
property. In a city or town in which all said college or university 
property equals or exceeds in valuation one fiftieth part of the 
total valuation of all the taxable property in the city or town, 
one fifth of said college or university property shall be exempt 
from taxation as at present; one fifth part of said taxes on college 
or university property shall be payable by said college or uni- 
versity or colleges or universities, but the remaining three fifths 
of said college or university property shall be taxed to the sanie 
extent as if the same were private property; but the same shall 
not be levied against the said college or university property 
thereof, but shall be paid by the commonwealth at the local tax 
rate to said city or town. 

Section 2. This act shall take eft'ect upon its passage* 

1909. HOUSE NO. 215. 

AN ACT 

Relative to the Taxation of Real Estate hereafter acquired in the 
City of Cambridge by Harvard University. 

Section 1. Real estate hereafter acquired in the city of 
Cambridge by Harvard university shall be subject to taxation. 

Section 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage. 



QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN REGARD TO THE 

EXEMPTION OF COLLEGE PROPERTY 

FROM TAXATION 



271 



THE EXEMPTION OF COLLEGE PROPERTY FROM 
TAXATION. 



Question. What is the purpose of taxation? 

Answer. To pay the cost of courts of justice, police, streets, sewers, 
fire departments, and other public utilities, including public education. 

Q. What grades of schools are maintained by taxation? 

A. Kindergarten, primary, secondary, normal, and higher. 

Q. What provision does Massachusetts make for higher education? 

A. Little by direct maintenance; it supports the Massachusetts 
Agricultural College at Amherst, with some aid from the national 
government, and makes annual grants to the Massachusetts Institute 
of Technology and the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. 

Q. Does Massachusetts then neglect the higher education? 

A. By no means. The state has fostered higher education since 
the earliest colonial days. It contains the oldest, largest, and most 
flourishing university in the United States, the best school of tech- 
nology, several of the small colleges for which New England is famous, 
including some of the best known colleges for women, and many 
excellent seminaries. 

Q. How has the state "fostered" these institutions? 

A. Often by grant of money and land in earlier times; always by 
exempting from taxation their personal property and all real estate 
used for educational purposes. 

// Q. On what groimd is the exemption based? 

A. On the ground that institutions of higher education, like insti- 

273 



274 EXEMPTION I'KO.M TAXATION 

tutions of religion and charity, perform an indispensable public- 
service, as indispensable as police, water-works, and streets, and 
should therefore not be levied upon for the support of other depart- 
ments of public service. 

Q. How has exemption from taxation operated to "foster" insti- 
tutions of learning? 

A. Benefactors seeking the greatest possible usefulness for their 
gifts have seen that the whole income of educational endowments has 
been available for the objects they have desired to promote. 

Q. Then the lands, buildings, grants, and other gifts contributed 
by the Commonwealth, by towns, and by private benefactors during 
nearly three hundred years have been contributed on the faith of the 
exemption clause? 

A. Undoubtedly. To tax the present holdings of our educational 
institutions would do violence to that faith; and even to tax their 
future holdings would, by averting gifts, block that continued growth 
in the just expectation of w^hich the earlier benefactions were made. 
If, in any case, the new^ burden of taxation resulted in the collapse of 
an institution, the beneficence of its founders Avould be robbed of that 
perpetuity which they justly regarded as one with the life of the 
Commonwealth. 

Q. But is it not possible that so large a part of the ordinary taxable 
property of the Commonwealth should fall into the hands of institu- 
tions of learning that the towns in which they were situated would 
find it difficult to raise enough money from other sources to meet the 
pubUc needs? 

A. It may be possible, but it is not a present fact; nor does experi- 
ence suggest that it ever will be. 

Q. How can this be shown? 

A. Very easily — so far as the past and present are concerned. 
The colleges and universities of Massachusetts have invariably caused 
such an increase in the value of taxable realty in their vicinity, both 
by promoting small trades and by creating a pleasant environment. 



SOME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 2<5 

that the per capita vahie of taxable real estate is approximately the 
same in towns and cities that contain colleges as in those of similar 
population that do not; indeed, the largest variations from this rule 
are in favor of the college towns and cities. 

Q. Is there not, however, a sense in which the exemption of college 
property may be regarded as a burden on the community in which 
it is situated? 

A. Yes, in this sense and in no other, namely, that the tax rate of a 
college town or city is higher than it would be if it could now begin 
to tax the exempted property. 

Q. You admit, then, that the exemption is a burden? 

A. Far from it. The question is not how much inmiediate profit a 
community would obtain at this moment if it could tax, say $20,000,000 
worth of college property; for that question might be applied with 
equal force to the millions of dollars lying in the United States sub- 
treasury, to the State House in Boston, or to any other untaxable 
property. The question really is whether the towns and cities con- 
taining exempted educational property — property that has grown 
in the security of the exemption clause — are really worse off as regards 
their ability to pay the ordinary expenses of public service than they 
would be if the colleges had never been located there. 

Q. What is the evidence that they are not worse ofi? 

A . The tax rates in college towns are no higher tlian those of towns 
of about the same size that do not contain colleges; indeed, they are 
often lower. In Cambridge, for example, if one adds to the exempted 
area of the college three times as much land all about this exempted 
area, and then takes the average value of that total for taxation pur- 
poses, exempted area and all, one arrives at a higher average value 
of land than exists anywhere else in the city. Where is the burden ? 
It has been a constantly recurring experience in Massachusetts that 
whenever a new institution of learning was to be founded towns have 
eagerly competed for the advantage of securing it, even offering, in 
some cases, a substantial money inducement. 



276 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

Q. Why is it, then, that so many people regard exemption as a 
burden? 

A. Simply because, as has already been stated, they see merely the 
advantage they would get if the exempted property were taxed now, 
and pay no attention to the fact that the property that has flourished 
on the faith of the exemption has increased neighboring values enough 
to offset the lack of revenue from the exempted district. 

Q. But if exemption is claimed on the ground of financial and 
other benefit conferred on the surrounding community, why would it 
not be equally just to exempt from taxation a factory which increases 
values in a town by coming into it, or a rich private citizen who so 
beautifies his land as to increase the value of his entire neighborhood? 

A. There is a fundamental fallacy in that question. The demon- 
stration that the colleges impose no burden on the communities in 
which they exist is brought forward, not as the original ground of tJie 
exemption, but to meet the unfounded allegation that they are a burden. 
Of course, if benefiting the community were the ground of the ex- 
emption, the beneficent factory and the beneficent private citizen 
could both claim exem})tion. The distinction between the college 
and the factory is that the college exists for a public object, while the 
factory exists primarily to make money for private persons. To 
go back to the original question — What is the purpose of taxation ? 
— it is agreed that the purpose of taxation is to pay the cost of the 
various public utilities, including education, and that the fundamental 
reason for exempting institutions of higher education from taxation is 
that they assumed that public and wholly indispensable fimction, 
and should therefore not be taxed for the maintenance of other public 
functions. Those who advocate the taxation of colleges rarely pro- 
fess anv hostility to them, on the contrary they are loud in proclaiming 
their belief in higher education; only, they say, the burden is more 
than the communities can stand. It is to meet that argument that 
the contrary argument is directed, showing that, on the whole, colleges 
are not a burden, but a source of pecuniary advantage to the towns in 
which they exist. 

Q. Is it not conceivable, however, that the sudden absorption by a 
college of a large area of taxable property would be a serious financial 
embarrassment to the community? 



SOME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 277 

A . Conceivable — yes — but highly improbable if experience 
counts for anything. Thus far it does not appear that the growth of 
Massachusetts colleges and their absorption of tax-paying property 
kas proceeded any faster than the compensating improvement, and 
hence elevation of values, in the neighborhood. 

Q. Is it true, then, that the college towns have nothing to fear 
from large increases in the funds of the colleges? 

A. Nothing whatever. For example, the funds of Harvard Uni- 
versity were increased two years ago by a gift of nearly $2,500,000, 
nearly half of which came from outside of Massachusetts. The 
income of this new fund was to be used for a specific purpose, namely, 
to increase the salaries of members of the teaching staff. Undoubtedly 
that meant a larger amount of money expended each year in Cambridge 
for rents, household supplies, and wages, and consequently a tendency 
to increase taxable values. No one can deny that in this way the new 
fund was a clear financial benefit to the city of Cambridge. Yet, on 
the theory that exempted property constitutes a burden, the burden 
resting on the city of Cambridge was increased by that accession of 
$2,500,000 to the funds of Harvard University! 

Suppose the invested funds of an institution amounting to $10,000,- 
000 should be doubled by some benefactor; what would be the effect 
on the town ? Possibly one or two small purchases of land, but un- 
questionably also a large expenditure on labor and materials for new 
buildings, many more teachers paying rents and taxes, and many 
more students attracted by increased opportunities and occupying 
taxed dormitories and lodgings. Would any intelligent citizen seeing 
such a prospect of money flowing into the city desire to avert the gift 
on the ground that it was a burden? 

Q. Nothing has been said thus far about the services which the 
town or city renders the college in the form of sewers, poUce and fire 
protection, etc. As the college and its members obtain benefit from 
these departments of the public service, is it not reasonable that the 
colleges should make some direct return? 

A. The best answer to that question is that a contrary policy has 
prevailed in Massachusetts for nearly 300 years with no resulting 
burden on the college towns; and that under that policy the institu- 



278 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 

tions of higher education in jMassaehusetts — universities, colleges 
for men and for women, technical schools and normal schools — are 
unsurpassed in service rendered. 

Q. What advantages other than financial can the institutions of 
higher education be said to confer on the Commonwealth? 

A . That is a pertinent question ; for the founders of JMassaehusetts 
were thinking little of direct pecuniary advantage when they gave 
of their poverty to foster the interests of learning. They placed a 
high moral value on education, and they knew that the happiness and 
well-being of a people could never be achieved if only the direct mate- 
rial comforts and benefits were sought after. 

It is true that most of the colleges of Massachusetts serve the whole 
Commonwealth and the nation as well as the locality in which they are 
situated. It remains true, however, that they all furnish to their 
several localities an educational opportunity which could not otherwise 
be obtained. Harvard, for example, is attended by 304 students 
who call Cambridge their home, and 561 students who call Boston 
their home. Inasmuch as each student in Harvard Universiti/ pays 
on the average only 4^% of what he costs the University, it may be 
stated tJiat these 865 young men receive each year from Harvard Uni- 
versity instruction and facilities for which an annual cash expenditure 
of about $150,000 is made in excess of what they pay in tuition fees. 
The fact that this great advantage is shared by students coming from 
other cities and from other states does not change the fact that over 
and above what it receives from fees the University is actually paying 
from its endoAvment funds about $150,000 a year for the instruction 
of Cambridge and Boston students. 

Q. How does the attitude of Massachusetts toward higher educa- 
tion compare with that of other states? 

A. In answering this question, it is fair to judge Massachusetts 
not by the proposed legislation but by her actual record in fostering 
higher education as described above: while belonging to the minority 
of states in which higher education is supported by the method of 
private endowment, with exemption from taxation, instead of by direct 
public support, she has steadily declared her faith in higher education 
by state and local grants and has seen her schools and colleges assume 



SOME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 279 

the leadership in American education. If, on the other hand, the 
poHcy of taxing college property should prevail, Massachusetts would 
compare unfavorably with nearly every other state in the Union. It 
is a matter of common knowledge that the great state universities of 
the West are becoming more and more important factors in higher 
education in the United States, and that they bid fair to surpass in 
numbers the older institutions in the East. Now it is generally true 
of the states supporting state universities that all their colleges and 
universities, both public and private, are exempt from taxation, 
while the state universities themselves are maintained directly by the 
public funds. Massachusetts would indeed have cause for shame 
if after relying on private beneficence to maintain higher education 
it should proceed to levy tribute on the funds sacredly devoted to that 
public use. If the Massachusetts method of supporting higher edu- 
cation by private endowments exempted from taxation were a failure, 
there would be some color of reason in proposing that institutions 
which had failed to perform their appointed tasks should no longer 
enjoy a discrimination based on supposed service to the community; 
but in view of the undisputed leadership and repeated pioneer service 
of Massachusetts in almost every field of education, from the lowest 
to the highest, a proposal to contract the income devoted to these high 
purposes, and that by a method sure to avert the stream of benefac- 
tions by which they live and grow, could hardly be tolerated by the 
intelligent and loyal citizens of the Commonwealth. 

(Compiled by J. D. Greene.) 



THE LAW IN OTHER STATES. 



As the citizens of Massachusetts are proud of the record of the 
Commonweakh as a leader in education, it will be of interest to them 
to examine the position of higher education in a few states of the 
Middle West. 

The law of Illinois exempts from taxation "all property of institu- 
tions of learning including the real estate on which the institutions are 
located not leased by such institutions or otherwise used with the 
view to profit." (Chapter 120, Section 2. Star and Curtis Revised 
Statutes.) 

The law of Wisconsin exempts from taxation the lands reserved for 
the grounds of a chartered college or university not exceeding 40 acres. 
(Revised Statutes, Chapter 48, Section 1038.) Chapter 116, Laws of 
1901 provides "that Lawrence University shall hold free of taxation 
any lands or other property acquired by donation, bequests, or pur- 
chase, and held expressly for educational purposes and for the endow- 
ment of the institution." 

The law of Ohio exempts from taxation " all public colleges, public 
academies, all buildings connected with the same, and all lands con- 
nected with public institutions of learning not used with the view to 
profit. This provision shall not extend to leasehold estates of real 
property held under the authority of any college or university of learn- 
ing in this state." 

The law of Michigan dealing with the exemjition of the property of 
colleges and universities exempts from taxation "such real estate as 
shall be occupied by them for the purposes for which they were incor- 
porated." (Section 13, Act 301, Laws of 1887.) 

In addition to the aid given to higher education by means of the 
exemption from taxation of endowed institutions, the states above 
mentioned have made direct contributions out of the public funds for 
the support of higher education in the state universities and agricultural 
and mechanical colleges as follows: 

AVERAGE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION P^OR FIVE YEARS PRECEDING THE 
DATE MENTIONED IN EACH CASE: 

Wisconsin $680,906. (to 1908). 

Illinois $714,776. (to 1908). 

Michigan $780,488. (to 1907). 

Ohio $395,366. (to 1907). 

280 



INDEX. 



Accounts, Publicity of, 110, 119. 
Acts of Legislature, 9-18, 49, 195 et 

seq., 249 et seq. 
Amherst College v. Amherst, 12, 235, 

237, 238. 
Appropriations, State, for higher edu- 
cation, 80, 280. 
Benefits to cities and towns. 

From colleges, 32, 33, 34, 72, 92, 

113, 121, 162, 167. 
From exemption, 103. 
Relation of increase of to increase 

of exempted property, 109. 
Bills proposed but not passed, 255 et 

seq. 
Briefs. 

For Cambridge in Harvard College 

V. Cambridge, 221. 
For Harvard College in Harvard 

College V. Cambridge, 188. 
For the colleges on Senate Bill 

No. 106, 161. 
Burden of Exemption, 22, 65, 71, 90; 

92, 95, 104, 122, 275. 
Burden, Local character of, 29, 105. 
Cambridge, Brief for, in Harvard 

College V. Cambridge, 221. 
Church property. Exemption of, 229. 
Colleges, Massachusetts affected by 

removal of exemption, 172. 
Colleges, National service of, 107. 
Commission of 1875, Report of, 49. 
Commission of 1897, Report of, 65. 
Committee on Taxation, Special Joint. 

Report of 1907, 87. 
Cooperative Society, Harvard, Ex- 
tract from 1907 Report of, 245. 
Dickinson, M. F., Letter to Legislature, 

1907, 131. 



Dining Halls, 191, 194, 206, 210, 241, 

263. 
Dormitories. 

Private, taxed in Cambridge in 

1905, 111, 173. 
Taxation of, 102, 116, 240, 263, 
265. 
Education, State appropriations for 

higher, 80, 280. 
Educational institutions, Table show- 
ing value of exempted property 
of, 97. ■ 
Ehot, Charles W., 

Letter to Legislature, 1907, 132. 
Remarks of, before Joint Com- 
mittee on Taxation, 1907, 99. 
Remarks of, before Recess Com- 
mittee on Taxation, 1906, 69. 
Statement to the Commissioners, 
1874, 21, 81. 
Endowments, Advantages of, 36, 37. 
Exemption, Fundamental Principles 
of, 22, 51, 57, 65, 79, 88, 101, 
103, 139, 273. 
Exempted property enriches a com- 

m\uiity, 103. 
Hale, Edward Everett, Letter to the 

Transcript of, 158. 
Hall, G. Stanley, Remarks of, before 
the Joint Committee on Taxa- 
tion, 1907, 118. 
Harvard College v. Cambridge, 13. 
Agreed facts, 180. 
Brief for Cambridge, 221. 
Brief for Harvard College, 188. 
Opinion of the Court, 239. 
Report of Judge Bell, 179. 
Harvard College, Early History of, 
188. 



281 



282 



EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 



Harvard Cooperative Society, Extracts 

from 1907 Report of, 245. 
Higginson, Col. Thomas Wentworth. 

Letter to the Herald, 158. 
Historical Statement, 9. 
Hoar, Samuel. Brief for harvard 

College, 188. 
Legislation, 49, 9-18. 

Text of, 195 et seq., 249 et seq. 
Construction of, 219. 
History of, 222. 
Letters to members of the Legislature, 

131. 
Lodgings for students. Taxed and un- 
taxed, in Cambridge, 85. 
Massachusetts colleges. 

Affected by removal of exemption, 

172. 
Remonstrance of, 129. 
Statement of Committee of, 137. 
Massachusetts General Hospital v. 
Somerville, 11, 57, 58, 210, 214, 
215, 216, 218, 235, 238, 242. 
Mt. Hermon Boys' School v. Gill, 12, 
208, 212, 217, 222, 231, 238, 
240. 
National service of colleges, 107, 125. 
Newspaper comments, 143. 
Occupancy by president or professors. 
Purpose of, 208, 229, 235. 
Manner of, 226. 
"Occupied by the Officers," 203, 225, 

235. 
Other states, What is done in, 117, 120, 

147, 174, 280. 
Pevey, Gilbert A. A. Brief for Cam- 
bridge in Harvard College v. 
Cambridge, 221. 
Pliillips Academy v. Andover, 13, 93, 
240. 
Opinion of the Court, 233. 
Pierce v. Cambridge, 11, 206, 235, 237, 

243. 
Professors' houses, Taxation of, 102, 
137, 143-157, 181 et seq., 205 
et seq., 235, 263, 265, 267. 



" Profit " of universities and colleges, 
90, 100, 116. 

Pubhcity of accounts, 110, 119. 

Questions and answers on principles of 
exemption. 273. 

Realty, Taxable value in college towns 
not diminished by exemption, 86. 

Reembursement of towns, 105, 262, 
266, 267. 

Remonstrance of Massachusetts col- 
leges, 1907, 129. 

Seelye, L. Clark, Remarks of, before the 
Joint Committee on Taxation, 
1907, 121. 

State aid to colleges, 117, 120, 147, 
174, 280. 

States, What is done in other, 117, 120, 
147, 174, 280. 

Statutes exempting, 9-18, 49, 195 et 
seq., 249 et seq. 

Students. 

Numbers of, in colleges and uni- 
versities, 171. 
Poor, effect of removal of exemp- 
tion on, 166. 

Tax rate, effect on, of exempted 
property, 72, 83, 91, 162, 275. 

Taxable property in college towns, 
percentage to that of whole 
county compared with percent- 
age of taxable individuals in 
town to county, 84, 102, 162. 
Increased, by reason of presence 
of college, 32, 92, 122, 163. 

Valuation, Excessive, 107. 

Wesleyan Academy v. Wilbraham, 11, 
57, 58, 211, 216, 217, 238, 240. 

Western universities. State aid to, 
117, 120, 147, 174, 280. 

Williams College v. Williamstowii, 
12, 93, 137, 202, 204, 205, 213, 
215, 216, 218, 223, 224, 2.33, 235, 
237, 242. 

WooUey, Mary E., Statement of, 112. 

Yale University v. New Haven, 217,, 
219, 238, 240. 



MOV 14 \9W 









LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ^ 

1 '''1 "1 !! '1 'N ^ 

029 498 854 3 













